This page lists the narrative of comments given by individuals responding to the 2019 library automation perceptions survey. Comments have been redacted to remove content that identifies the indivudual or institution. To place the comments in perspective, the library type, size of collection, and the rating given for overall ILS satisfaction is provided.
There were 975 narrative comments given regarding 83 different products:
some answers didn't really fit because there is no vendor and customer support is more or less on a voluntary bases... (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
En los servicios centrales hay muy poco personal para administrar el SIGB. Lo que se necesita es un sistema que sea muy sencillo de gestionar y con amplio apoyo de la empresa del SIGB. Absysnet, en ese sentido, cumple bien con las necesidades de la institución. Por eso el cambio de SIGB ni es inminente ni urgente. (Library type: Special; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We have been extremely happy with Accessit. The service and training is the best we have ever had. The company has many former librarians on staff so they understand our needs and have even offered valid suggestions that we did not think of. We have some glitches with our online resources but are working through those. We also may have a problem with the EBSCO Discovery service and may look into the federated search that Accessit offers if we have to pay too much for EBSCO to reconnect us. While we looked at an open source product, we don't have the expertise or staffing to implement one. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This is our first year with Accessit and so far we are very happy with it. I still need to learn some of its functions in order for it to really work to its capabilities. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We migrated to Accessit Library during the summer of 2019 and are glad we did. Their support is absolutely top notch! I wholeheartedly recommend them for any small library looking for an excellent price point, amazing customer service, and a solution to everyday library problems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have loved Ex Libris as a company. We are a quasi-governmental entity and open source options are challenging for us. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Aleph is a legacy system at this stage. It does what it does well - but is way past its sell-by date particularly when it comes to the effective management of digital resources. It also lacks the capacity for integration of related services (e.g. Reading Lists, discovery services) as offered by current library management platform offerings. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
After a long hiatus in moving forward with a next-gen system implementation, we are once again scheduling consortium-wide meetings with the vendors. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We have an RFP for a replacement library system. That RFP has been placed on hold, but will be re-opened in the coming year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are actually in the transition phase from Aleph to Alma an will work from 2021 with a productive Alma / PrimoVE system. Therefore our answers still refer to Aleph. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Please include an N/A option. Most of the direct contact to the company and support services for our ILS run through the consortia so we have little to judge on. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
Exlibris is a competent Provider of library Systems but rather expensive. More competition in the field would not only bring prizes down but also stimulate Innovation. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
For large research libraries there is a lack of choice in viable ILS products (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
C'est la dernière année d'utilisation d'Aleph car nous sommes actuellement en processus d'implantation du nouveau système. Nos réponses sont donc faites en tenant compte de ce changement. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Responses above are in the middle range because the consortium manages the ILS. We go through the consortium for any problems, enhancements, or troubleshooting. We have no experience with the vendor itself. For the planned migration to a new ILS, that is a state mandated project that is funded and managed through the consortium. While each consortium member has representation on the review team and negotiating team for that project, we are prohibited by an NDA from discussing the vendors who responded to the ITN. There should be an announcement in early 2020 as to which vendor was selected. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
El costo anual de mantenimiento de ALEPH es demasiado elevado. En Argentina nos cuesta muchísimo poder pagarlo. Quisiéramos tener otros productos como Alma, Primo, etc. pero es "imposible" dado los montos en dólares. Nuestro país ha sufrido una devaluación muy grande y al precio en dólores lo tenemos que multiplicar por 80. Por tal motivo, estamos pensando a mediano plazo evaluar las alternativas de software libre. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We will shortly have a tender out for the market regarding a discovery system. Since we have Aleph we think ExlIbris will offer us Alma as an ILS, especially now after Exlibris acquired Innovative, otherwise Sierra might be an option. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are moving to Folio beginning in Q3 2020, implementing the ERM-focused applications first. In Q3 2021, we plan to implement the rest of Folio. We've been involved in the Open Library Foundation since its inception. We will be using Index Data for hosting and implementation services. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The ILS that we use in good but the support company has lowered its effectiveness, however we have no other option in the market (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The customer support would be better and respond faster as Aleph cost a lot in annual year maintenance (among three product: Aleph, SFX & Primo) Compare with Primo, in view of product development, Aleph seems have slow development, not too many new functions and not too much improvement. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Easy integration of data into the systems developed by the library (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We aree part of a consortium, so some of these questions are not relevant. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
I was not employed when the current system was installed and I do not interact with their customer service team. I believe all of our electronic resources go through Mango. The state is currently seeking new ILS and Discover systems, but I am not involved in the decision making. I know there is a lot of interested in Open Source for cost saving. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are part of the national Project "[...]". ALMA as ILS will be implemented in December in all University libraries in [,...] . (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
The [...] chose Sierra over Alma after hoping for something better than Primo which we don't like at all. Inspire was an option offered. Now we will have to choose between Alma + Primo VE or Sierra + Primo (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
In the past year we heavily investigated changing automation systems. We were using Alexandria v6 on a library server. After much debate and investigating other systems, we chose to change to Alexandria v7 hosted by Companion Corp. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I don't know why more small libraries don't use this product. We love it. It has all the necessary bells and whistles, is inexpensive and the migration cost was low. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
CompanionCorp/Alexandria is a very simple/basic system for our library techs to use, however the administrative management system and data collection reports are very poor. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Ex Libris Alma continues to lack core functionality that was present in legacy systems. It takes staff members more time to do their jobs than it did before. We have to create workarounds to achieve standard outcomes that should be part of any library system. Consortial functionality is lacking, and much of the burden of making records appear in a user-friendly way in Primo is placed on the customers. There are metadata treatments that should be standard out of the box that we have to spend time building. Ex Libris does not test their releases, instead relying on customers to test for them. As Ex Libris achieves market dominance, our hope that the product will improve to support our needs is next to nothing. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
The implementation itself was rough going, but in the year and a half since then, we have come to appreciate the features and services. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The complexity of the Alma system makes the learning curve pretty high (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Alma is getting better all the time, but still, it is suitable mainly for large libraries. I think they should think of creating a lighter version for small libraries. Also the Community Zone (electronic resources inventory) functionality should be improved. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The company is a distinct improvement on our previous ILS/LSP vendor. We appreciate monthly updates to the LSP and quarterly updates to the discovery layer. However, this development cycle results in poorly tested new features that sometimes must be rolled back or patched after rollout . There are also new features that we are waiting for that when moved to production are often only partial solutions to the problem. The company needs to do many more focus groups and interviews with customers about some of their planned features. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
The system itself is on the whole very good, and broadly meets our needs. The company does work hard to keep developing the product so that it remains relevant to us. Where it lets itself down is in customer support, where waiting a month (or very often much more) even for some kind of actual response to a support call is the norm. This also results in a large number of 'Pending Development' cases in our backlog going back a year and more. Also, the number and scale of faults and bugs that are introduced in the monthly release schedule is considerable and seemingly getting worse, and makes us wonder about the company's ability to effectively beta test their own products. The fact it takes so long to get a response to a support call compounds the problem of dealing with new faults found in the latest release version. The discovery interface is good but the downside is that the metadata provided by the vendor must be very good for it to work, which is not always the case, resulting in library staff expending great effort to report missing/incorrect metadata leading to broken links in the discovery interface. We are reliant on the vendor to fix the metadata supplied, we cannot do it ourselves, which results in yet more support calls which can take months to resolve. There must be a better way to get effective resource discovery without all this effort but so far a better way is proving elusive. This has mostly sounded negative and complaining but apart from the specific issues described, the product is indeed very good and functional. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Alma is a very good product with a substantial learning curve for the back end. That being said, the customer support for the product is quite responsive. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are in the process of implementation, with a projected go-live target of June 1, 2020. there are 54 institutions participating in the migration. They are coming from III, Sirsi, WMS, Koha, TLC and EOS. Answers above are based on migration experience to-date rather than live operational knowledge. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Implementation of new LSP is still in process. I think the timeline for implementation was too aggressive and has made the process more challenging, but that timeline was probably necessitated by state funding requirements. The platform is designed for institutions with far more resources than community colleges and that's made it all the more overwhelming. Nomenclature is also an issue. Although we can adapt to non-traditional library language, it is still difficult to grasp some of the concepts involved in the system's unique acquisitions process, especially relating to electronic resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
We're not live yet in Alma, so it's difficult to get a sense on how things will work. There will be a lot of improvements, I'm sure, but we're encountering problems that we didn't think we would have. In regards to print sources, if you have multiple libraries sharing one institutional instance (such as most of the community college districts), it's not possible to just show items from your own library. There are also issues with the Primo Central Index such as no chapter level indexing for Gale products. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Note: I recorded bibliographic records for 'Approximate number of items in the library's collection', as the question is not specific to physical or electronic. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Alma is very university / electronic publications focussed and does not meet the needs of cultural institutions who collect physical materials and who need to value their collection, retain information about preservation treatments and describe collections archivally. ExLibris spend a lot of time and resources building new products such as Leganto and Esploro rather than fixing or improving the core system. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Implementing Rosetta (Ex Libris digital preservation system) and migrating digital objects from DigiTool. Early Access participant for CDI Central Discovery Index (replacing Primo Central Index) early 2020. [...] is a cultural collecting institution, original materials can be a little difficult to manage in Alma and Primo. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are very impressed with the functionality of he Alma modules and its ability to produce an array of reports. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
There is a growing community of other libraries who use this ILS, because of this there is an excellent network of librarians who help each other with questions about the product. The documentation from the vendor is excellent, as is the customer support. I appreciate the live webinars given by the vendor and the ability to recommend and vote on enhancements. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
As part of a consortium of 60 libraries in SUNY we are trying to stay together and be One collection. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
*note - increase in collection size is due to restructuring (added 3 libraries). (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Even after two years of working with Alma & Primo I'm not convinced that it is a good choice for very small, low-staff institutions. Built-in processes assume that the work will be shared between several people or departments when it is covered by only one person. Documentation does not offer much how-to explanation for the typical way to use a feature, it is more of here is what the software can do. I'm still finding OTB configuration options that don't make a lot of sense or are not well thought out, but had not yet caused a large enough problem to reconcile until now. The metadata editor is supposed to be re-done next year, but currently I avoid working in it, and try to do the same through other outside tools. We could not implement all features during implementation, since just getting data transferred and basic functions working and trained on was for our small staff to handle. However, now that we are attempting to do more it is much more difficult since most-migration support is more limited. EDI for invoices is not as seamless as hoped. SUSHI function leaves a lot to be desired, particularly as the Alma implementation of COUNTER5 is lagging behind that of many vendors. Alma and Primo may be great for some libraries, but for very small libraries its complexity outweighs the benefits it may have. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
No system is going to be absolutely perfect for everyone, but I think that Alma/Primo is at least on the right track for the future of library automation, and Ex Libris has a good strategic vision for the future. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Management of electronic resources in large, varied consortium environment continues to be problematic. Most of the issues are with the Primo VE discovery system. Slow/poor indexing leads to lag in resource availability or retrieval of resources that should not be available or inability to search resources that should be available, or no working link to full-text for resources the library has activated. Consortium lending (fulfillment network) also does not work very well with a large number of resource requests failing for various reasons. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Although [...], our consortium, signed the contract with Alma late last year, we are still in the migration process. We are still technically on Voyager, but we are also working with our test loads in Alma right now, so it is difficult to adequately respond to the survey this year. ExLibris and [...] support have been great so far during the migration process. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium)
We migrated from Innovative Millennium to Ex Libris Alma/Primo several years ago, which produced significant improvements in technical infrastructure and integration, user experience and support. In recent years our librarians have developed more critical perspectives on the vendor landscape. There is an inherent contradiction between the values and mission of libraries (to provide open access to information) and that of for-profit, equity-owned vendors such as Ex Libris and Innovative (to maximize value for shareholders by leveraging copyright, selling analytics and keeping customers locked in) (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Inability to correct CZ data is a huge negative. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our number reflect that we have been in production on Alma for only 4 months. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Scoring is based on the most current completed satisfaction survey conducted internally. We still feel that Ex Libris is the best solution for our library system and set of circumstances, and worry about Ex Libris' ability to scale development and support resources to meet the growing customer base and our equally expanding needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Proquest reorganize the way to provide support. They eliminate intermediaries and now the communication is more fluid (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
I would love for us to implement an open source system, but we lack the staff to deal with incomplete modules or self-service support models. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Ex Libris is the only vendor that was willing to engage in a FedRAMP submission and is currently the only ILS vendor with a complete and approved FedRAMP authority to operate. This makes Alma/PrimoVE the only cloud based option for federal and military libraries. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Marshall, regarding "Approximate number of items in the library's collection" - Do you mean titles in the collection? Physical items(including copies) in the collection? We have many electronic titles for which we don't have items. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
There is continued development within Alma and the functionality is still growing. But there are areas around Inter Library Loans which could be improved upon (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Alma is too much system for us. We have a small staff and our needs are simple. The larger libraries in our consortium rammed this thru. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Ex Libris is a much better partner and more responsive to issues and requests than Innovative. We are happy with our 2017 ILS move from Sierra to Alma. We're interested in the open source ILS developments, but the amount of internal development, programming, maintenance, etc. that takes is not desirable. We would rather put our limited programming resources into other efforts. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are using Alma for the past year and are still discovering new functionality as we become more and more familiar with the system. Ex Libris is updating the products on a regular basis and appear prepared to consult with the user community. But the responsiveness of Ex Libris customer support seems inconsistent - there is often a lot of chasing required to get action on support cases. And there are often a lot of bugs or problems as a side-effect of monthly/quarterly releases of system; this seem to indicate that perhaps more thorough testing should be taking place at Vendor’s end before these updates are released. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our library is small and Alma-Primo too big and complex for it. It was acquired following a trend marked by other institutions but without an individual evaluation of the library's needs and resources. The consequence is that for Alma to function correctly a strong team in charge of parameterization and small details is necessary, we don't have it and we pay for it. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
We see Alma as a very extensive, but somewhat complicated ILS to get full use of. Primo as a discovery system has a lot of weaknesses, such as searchability that is quite difficult to comprehend both for our end users and library staff (which sources are you getting content from, how do you find material outside your own institution?) and an unknown algorithm for ranging material, which makes search results unpredictable for our librarians, and makes searching for specific subjects difficult (this is of course not unique for Primo). We went through a merger 2 years ago with a library using KOHA. We seriously considered changing to KOHA, but in order to keep our services at the same level as before we would have to integrate a discovery service and a system for ILL with the Norwegian BIbsys consortia, and it simply proved too complicated and expensive for a medium/small academic library to take on alone. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
ALMA, which is the staff side of the ILS, is working fairly well and we are mostly satisfied. Primo VE, which is the user side, leaves much to be desired. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
still instaling alma so haven't really been able to form an opinion, golive 12/18 (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The system works adequately well, but it is not "had-and-shoulders" better than its predecessor (Millennium), in my opinion. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
The 527,295 number listed above includes the number of physical items in the library's collection plus the number of electronic books and media. It also includes 110,141 electronic journal titles and 1,348 print journal titles. I don't have an estimate of how many issues (i.e., how I'd define items) are in our 111,489 journal titles. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Electronic resource integrations, management, and discovery are excellent. Physical material processing requires a higher level of skill and training than Sierra, so fewer people can work on processing effectively. Role management is sometimes not granular enough for specific local work requirements. There is only one UK vendor online payment integration available, with no US options; more should be available by now. Local IT security concerns inhibit the use of the powerful Alma APIs for local portal development. New desirable features and fixes are applied frequently. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are in the middle of a year-long process of implementing Alma/Primo VE, with Go Live planned for June 2020, so it's very difficult to answer these questions with anything but average ratings. Alma is very complex with terminology and procedures that require a complete readjustment of how we did things in our previous Sirsi Symphony ILS. I haven't worked with configuring Primo VE yet so I do not know how it will compare to EBSCO Discovery. Complicating everything is that we are moving from a standalone system and becoming part of a 55 member statewide shared system so it's hard to know yet if any issues are because of the complicated vendor system or because of needing to work in cooperation with so many other libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are currently in the middle of moving to a new ILS so it's difficult to answer these questions accurately. Most of our issues have to do with the migration and updating our equipment and systems to accommodate this large change. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
The count are of physical items. We went live with Alma/PrimoVE 1 year ago. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
exlibris, our ILS provider is a library system mammoth, additionally since our catalog is in Hebrew and Arabicin addition to the English collection, this narrows down our choice of providers (unfortunately) so that changing providers is not a viable option. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
While every product likely has room for growth, we appreciate Ex Libris's process for involving their community in prioritizing new features/improvements and in developing new products. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Not at all impressed with Ex Libris customer service. They tend to do things on their schedule rather than the customers. Their online support documents and training resources are confusing. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have signed up for Esploro to replace our research repository system. We have confidence in Ex Libris as a company to deliver on this new product and can see major benefits in leveraging expertise in and expanding the existing Alma platform with Esploro. As a company Ex Libris seem to be consistent in their commitment to bringing products to market that libraries/universities need and continue to listen/consult with customers. We are however, somewhat dismayed at the announcement that they have acquired Innovative Interfaces - there is a danger in monopolistic marketplaces. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The Alma system is extremely complex and uses unfamiliar terms (e.g., resource sharing = ILL). Configuration is broken into many tables and it is difficult to figure out how they interrelate and where specific settings are. Some basic sort and filter options are missing and have to wait for further development. Vendor support is very responsive but some fixes have to wait for development cycles. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Electronic resource management in Intota was superior than what we have in Alma. Especially with regard to activation of e-resource packages. Previously Proquest would jump at adding new packages to be managed in Intota -- since moving to ExLibris we have been told to add new packages to the "Idea Exchange" -- a completely unacceptable answer. It is getting to the point that acquisitions decisions are being made in part on whether or not the package can be managed appropriately in Alma/Primo. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We would have been less likely to consider ExL for a future contract, but now that they've bought III, the market shrinks even further. There is some interest in open source products among some members of the consortium, mainly the smaller libraries without adequate technical staff. Why they think that would be better is beyond those of us who do the heavy lifting as tech contributors to the consortium. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our migration overall was on schedule but migrating our electronic resources holdings was a disaster. We had to re-do most all of it manually. ExLibris admitted they were at fault for the migration issues with e-resources so they have given us more attention and help than they might have otherwise. Their documentation and support still needs work. We may be interested in FOLIO down the road, but would not want to be an early adopter. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are not satisfied with PrimoVE, especially its response speed. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We migrated to Alma from Millennium in late December 2018, so 2019 has been a year of learning, adapting procedures, cleaning up data, and keeping up with Alma & Primo releases. Our architecture (one Alma institution for the three college libraries in our consortium) is different from most other customers, which has made it challenging to resolve some issues which may be unique to us. There are some tasks in circulation that we haven't figured out how to do in Alma, or that may not be possible to do. We have contracted for an expert services workshop in summer 2020 to work on these and other issues. Support for issues in the ticketing system has been uneven; sometimes there is a quick and very helpful response, sometimes problems take longer to be addressed. Alma analytics has been challenging for many staff; there is a steep learning curve. But the frequency of system updates, monthly releases with new features and bug fixes, is very refreshing after living with a much slower pace of development with our previous vendor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
It would useful for the survey to include a question about management of digital content to complement the questions on physical and electronic resources. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
With Customer service cases, quality of the responses can vary. Some are dealt with quickly, others require repeated follow up and are left unresolved. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have been live on Alma for almost 3 years, but started the migration a couple of years before that. A number of things that were promised at the start did not get implemented until much later, or not at all. Our impression of Alma is that it is a functional, useful tool -- but at least in our implementation, it is not a transformational next-gen solution. There is very little that we are doing on Alma that we could not have accomplished using our legacy ILS. The current cost of Alma is not sustainable for us long-term, so we are currently in negotiations to try to reduce that cost substantially. Depending on the outcome of that negotiation, we may be looking to migrate to another system within the next 3 years. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We moved to Alma at the beginning of this year. Migration of electronic records was rocky, and glitches are still being fixed. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)
[...] (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: very large)
Migration taking place at time of survey. Support, training, and documentation from the vendor has been disappointing. The Central Index doesn't provide good access to content in EBSCO databases. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small)
In general, the system works well. There are a few things that actually worked better in our older system, but there are more things that work better in Alma than they did in Aleph. My biggest complaint with them is that the monthly releases don't seem to be tested very well, as things often get messed up as a direct result of something in the release. Response time to open cases could be better. It would be nice if we could contact customer service by phone rather than only online; some problems would be much easier to explain verbally. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our acquisitions specialist is unhappy with Alma's funds and encumbrances functionality. The company has been slow to dedicate resources to making Alma/Primo work with Innovative's INN-Reach API, necessitating continued clunky integration with Innovative's DCB server system in order for us to continue our resource sharing program using the Colorado Alliance's hosted Prospector INNReach system. Ex Libris is a forward thinking vendor particularly with its Alma ILS, being the first major vendor to offer a very complete and entirely web based method of administration. To some of us, Ex Libris support is improving, especially whenever support requests stay within the tiered support system. However if requests are forwarded outside of that (e.g. changing the domain name of the discovery system) we have found them to lack good communication and customer service skills. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Ex Libris continues to have transparency and timeliness issues communicating plans with the user community and even working groups. They seem more interested in the financial growth of the company and operating like other cloud services, like Google and Amazon, than in working to make Alma better. More specifically, their improvement efforts seem to be more what they think are issues than listening to the majority of users. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Alma and Primo VE are the ILS and Interfaces currently being used by the [...] Library. We migrated from Voyager to Alma in 2016. We were using some functionalities in Voyager that were no longer available in Alma. The change of workflow was good. Some modules in Alma required further development as they do not meet all the desired functionalities of an ILS system. ExLibris could ask inputs from smaller libraries to develop their annual product roadmap. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Workflows for print resource management can be frustratingly complex and seem to be overly reliant on acquisitions integration. All in all Ex Libris is attuned to their global users’ needs although sometimes the smaller institutions lose a voice in this dialog. We are part of a multi-type library consortium and the special & smaller libraries find Alma especially unwieldy. Support has improved but sometimes knowledge base documentation lags behind system updates. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] is still running on Aleph. Migration is underway but the library will not be actively using Alma until July 28, 2020. Responses above are speculative about Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Ex Libris clearly recognizes their near monopolistic situation in the market and exploits that to their advantage -- and to the disadvantage of their ILS customers. In my estimation, Alma is not a bad product, but it is inadequately supported, documented, and maintained. Issues requiring developer attention typically take far too long to be resolved, and new features -- perhaps especially those being marketed to consortia, like the Automated Fulfillment Network -- rarely behave as advertised. Configuration, moreover, is overly complex, and its complexity is magnified by the poor quality of the documentation. Finally, Alma Analytics -- touted as a key selling point by Ex Libris prior to our implementation -- does not meet the needs that it is designed to serve: the interface is clunky and hard to use, and more important, the data often do not match what one is able to extract directly from Alma with the same query. Primo VE, on the other hand, is simply a poor product. I get the impression that it was rushed into production before it was ready for prime time. Since going live, we've documented numerous problems with indexing and performance, which have rendered its use as a discovery tool sub-par (relative to Summon, which we used previously). Moreover, little attention seems to have been given to the mobile UI, which is rather dreadful, despite the fact that our users increasingly resort to mobile platforms when doing research. In the light of these complaints, it was disheartening to hear Ex Libris executives -- when pressed about the company's priorities relative to Alma, Primo, and other products like Esploro -- admit that these other products were receiving more development resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)
We migrated to Alma/PrimoVE in 2019 from III Sierra. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are not particularly happy with Ex Libris/ProQuest, but there really is no one else out there... We seem to lack the "get up and go" to implement an open source ils. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We transitioned to Alma late 2019 and are unable to fully answer the survey at this time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large)
Se está trabajando en la habilitación de nuevos repositorios en DSpace para Gestión de datos de investigacióny Arhivos patrimoniales. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The [...] library is currently part of the [...] consortia which makes it difficult to answer some of the questions in the survey, especially regarding customer support. Our primary contact for support is Bibsys/Unit. Both questions and backoffice-changes in the system that we cannot perform ourselves are handled by them. What is included in (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
From one department head: Extremely disappointed in company (Ex Libris) from implementation to ongoing support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
The nursing library had little input into the selection of the ILS. The central libraries selected, paid for and carried out the implementation. The transition was painful. The new system does not handle the cataloging or circulation of our clinical equipment very well. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are part of a consortium, and aren't thrilled with Alma, but don't see many alternatives that are better. We have looked at Folio demos, and it doesn't seem to be ready yet to go live. As part of a complete system redesign of PASSHE, we may need to change our ILS, but it's not known when changes will be ready to be made. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
I am concerned with the acquistion of Innovative by Ex Libris - the performance of the cloud product seems to be overloaded (slow Analytics updates and response times, more downtime than usual) and I can't imagine what it will be like once all those Innovative customers are in the same system. Support response system is falling as well. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
For the question: For the most recent ILS implemented in this library, was the system installed and put into production on schedule according to the terms of your contract? --> I was not here when the ILS was implemented and do not have insight into the contract terms, etc. At the [..] we mainly use ALMA for circulation purposes and do not have insight into upper level workflows including cataloging, orders, e-resource management, etc. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
This software is far too powerful for what we use it for. Our physical library was abolished 6 years ago. We gave away/threw away most of the collection, but we kept the software as a source for the books we still have. A 'few' items have remained in the catalogue. I add some now and then. We do not use it for acquisition, fulfillment, e-sources … only as a small catalogue. To conclude: I am not a very valuable resource for commenting on this software. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have just migrated to Alma from Sierra. We do not have enough experience with Alma to really make informed answers (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Approximate number of items in the library's collection number changed significantly over the last time we reported because we were now able to provide electronic holdings. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Alma/Primo has met our needs for integration with our institution's Active Directory, and is able to accommodate future integrations as needed. Even though staff spent much time getting to know the software in our first year, we were able to implement efficiencies with Resource Management (metadata) and Fulfillment that relieve staff of some of the busywork with metadata, authority control and notifications. Alma Analytics allows us to track usage and create user profiles. Our print collection is approximately 30,000 items, our online resources exceed 400,000. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We're part of a large Alma/Primo buy [...] and in reality Alma is a much more robust and powerful system than our college needs. At times we would likely be better served with a simpler, less fully featured system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We were forced to switch to Alma/Primo VE along with all of the other [...] because our Chancellor's Office has chosen to pay for it. The system is very difficult to work with. It is counterintuitive and click-heavy. Configuring it requires computer programming knowledge that we do not have in our library (it's sort of the ILS equivalent of IKEA furniture). Aspects of the system are still not working. Although the company has provided extensive instructional materials, not all of them are well designed and we continue to have significant functional problems as well as simply being frustrated with the clunky look and feel. I so wish they had picked something different. We had WorldShare before, and there were some difficulties with that but it was better. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
ExLibris was the only vendor that was willing to put up the investment dollars to work a real FedRAMP application. They are the only major ILS vendor to have obtained FedRAMP approval and an official Authority to Operate ATO. This is a mandatory requirement for any federal government or military cloud based implementation. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are tied to decisions our consortium makes with regard to the ILS. The fact that III and ProQuest are now part of the ExLibris universe gives us fewer options for systems to serve libraries of our size. We are still cleaning up and learning about the new system 5 years after our migration. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
It was difficult to answer this survey since we just went live with Alma about a month ago. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are very dissatisfied with the resources sharing (ILL) component of Alma within the [...] context. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Support has been hit-or-miss. Some kinds of questions are addressed promptly and fully, others languish. Approximate number of items in the library's collection includes electronic titles as well as physical titles. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Electronic resource integrations, management, and discovery are excellent. Physical material processing requires a higher level of skill and training than Sierra, so fewer people can work on processing effectively. Role management is sometimes not granular enough for specific local work requirements. New desirable features and fixes are applied frequently. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Alma is a very powerful LSP capable of smoothly functioning as a hub for an academic library. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Not that we have recorded bibliographic records for 'Approximate number of items in the library's collection', as the question is not specific to physical or electronic. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Ex Libris Alma offers high functionality and requires a high learning curve. It has not shown many benefits for a smaller institution that has only one library. We've had difficulties with finding relevant and up to date collections from the community zone. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Not enough testing of new features before release. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Ex Libris' Alma product continues to improve in terms of release reliability. Alma performance (for its shared instance) has dipped; task completion takes longer for library staff on the shared NA01 instance - cause unknown. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
NGLSP is not only a system, but also an ecology consisted by system vendor, libraries, and 3rd party developers. The NGLSP should be more open for its functional APIs and data structures, and let more third party companies to fit local and tailor-made needs, as well as improving the KB data quality and quantity by the system vendor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We didn't answer to the last question because it is not clear to us what means (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Implementamos el nuevo sistema (Alma + Primo VE) en febrero de 2019, desde entonces hemos tenido muchas incidencias. Las más importantes son las relativas a puntos críticos como es el servicio de préstamo al usuario, algunas de ellas siguen sin resolver, otras se resuelven de forma "espontánea" sin explicarnos por qué, y también se nos ha dado el caso de que una funcionalidad vaya correctamente, y de repente deje de hacerlo sin ninguna explicación aparente, por ejemplo tenemos un caso reciente de exportación de un fichero de registros bibliográficos que en octubre pudimos exportar con éxito y en enero no hemos podido, y todavía no hemos recibido respuesta. Hemos observado en algunas ocasiones mal funcionamiento de reglas de préstamo configuradas correctamente por nuestra parte y también problemas con las reservas de ejemplares, lo cual es crítico ya que afecta directamente al Servicio de Préstamo, el más importante que ofrece la biblioteca a sus usuarios. No estamos satisfechas en cuanto a la forma de gestionar las seriadas impresas, este sistema resulta bastante más complicado que nuestro sistema anterior (Sierra). Tampoco estamos satisfechas con la forma en que se establecen relaciones entre registros en Primo VE, aplicando las herramientas FRBR y Dedup, ya que las listas de resultados que se ofrecen confunden a nuestros usuarios en numerosas ocasiones. Un aspecto positivo de Alma, es que la gestión de recursos electrónicos ha mejorado considerablemente respecto al sistema anterior (Sierra). Todavía estamos pendientes del desarrollo e implementación de un sistema para gestionar un servicio de préstamo consorciado entre las bibliotecas del [...], al que pertenece nuestra Biblioteca y que en Sierra se denominaba Inn Reach. Respecto al sistema de soporte de Exlibris, tenemos que decir que nos gusta porque permite incluir imágenes y comentarios, y también reabrir casos cerrados. En cuanto a la atención recibida, si bien es correcta en todo momento por parte del personal que atiende, no podemos decir lo mismo en lo que se refiere a la resolución de las incidencias que puede demorarse incluso meses. En nuestro caso, prácticamente todas las semanas abrimos alguna incidencia. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)
Se resalta la disposición de recursos en línea para la colaboración entre las bibliotecas usuarias de Alma. Se recomienda un mejor análisis de la capacidad regional de las instituciones para las implementaciones de Alma. Se sugiere continuar mejorando la herramienta de Alma Analytic a la luz de la capacidad en la descarga de datos y la facilidad de cruzar la información con los diferentes campos parametrizados y módulos/procesos. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
From a back office perspective, the best feature is the ordering API for GOBI in Alma. This has created significant efficiencies for our Acquisitions staff. The batch receiving function for print items has also saved us time. Having monthly updates to the software pushed automatically to the sandbox first and then later on to the production environment is a great feature. However, Alma workflows include much more clicking to complete any task than our previous ILS, and staff complain that because of this it takes longer to do everything. Alma is also generally slow, which may be because of its being a cloud-based web application. The system also seems to be designed for very large institutions where staff have more targeted responsibilities, and as a smaller institution, the step-by-step tasks, while conceptually very good, make it more cumbersome for our staff who have multiple roles. The electronic resources management functions, a significant reason for our migration to Alma, seem overly complicated, though we do like the community zone records, allowing us to greatly curtail batchloads of MARC records. Our public services librarians are underwhelmed with the Primo discovery interface and indicate that faculty tell them that they have some difficulty finding things in the catalog. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are not in production with Alma yet; as part of the [...] consortium, we have been using Alma in a test environment for 6 months of 2019 (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Discovery layer does not work for specialized users like medical students. Primo provides way too much noise to signal. It probably works great for undergrads who need any five papers for their homework or otherwise do not need to quickly discriminate between what's useful and what's not. It does not work well for those with specific information needs. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
We find Ex Libris Alma/Primo to be a much more complicated system than we need. However, we migrated as part of a group of statewide libraries. We don't have the IT support or know-how to migrate to anything open source. We also don't have the IT support or know-how to really support Alma/Primo in the way it should be. That said, we get a lot of functionality we wouldn't have with our previous system (Millennium). (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
With the recent acquisition of Innovative, I'm concerned with the decreasing competition in the ILS market. I'm also concerned about the seemingly never-ending increase in subscription pricing. It is difficult to justify an inventory management system that costs as much as the inventory. I suspect more and more smaller or medium-sized libraries will be priced out of their current ALMA platform within a few years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Implementation of Alma/PrimoVE in 2018 not well managed. The result is we are still getting to grips with the ILS -- it has a lot of potential to streamline workflow. However, a key driver for our migration was to escape dependence on IT skills, particularly coding or scripting skills, and that has certainly not been achieved. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
All discovery layers on the market have issues and are not optimum from a UX or discovery point of view. There has been a lack of investment from the major vendors, and now with further consolidation, it feels like the situation is not likely to improve. Open source is only of interest if there are robust and reliable support/hosting solutions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our latest frustration reflects not particularly the product or vendors but rather the fact that our new ILS is in a cloud. Never have we experienced such random lags (spinning wheels) nor felt at such a loss as to the source of trouble! In the old days, we could reliably hand a problem off to our vendor for resolution. But today our problems are shrouded in clouds, hard to troubleshoot. Note, regarding one question in this survey: for "number of items" I suppose this to mean print volumes, and have left the answer accordingly. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We just installed Alma in last December. Thus, we need some time to be familiar with it's interface and functions. So far so good. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Alma's core functionality is more than sufficient for our needs. For managing a local collection, it is not as satisfactory as Voyager: workflows are sometimes awkward, and some features (e.g., "work orders") are obviously designed for large libraries with numerous specialized staff. Such workflows actually impede efficiency in the small library. On the other hand, electronic resource management and integration with Primo VE has greatly improved our service to end users. Our experience with customer support has been very uneven: some issues are resolved quickly, and some take an inordinately long time. We suspect Ex Libris has become overwhelmed, due to the rapid growth of its customer base. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
In relation to our impressions on the product support is that overall when issues come up we tend to rely on community support for quick response, clarifications and confirmation of issues than on vendor support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Ex Libris is a great company with a strong vision for it's products. They are innovative and ambitious, they are open with development contributions from customers. The only concern is that they are taking over market competitors, and this makes our negotiation position weaker. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Alma takes too many clicks. Some positive voyager features are not in Alma. The Alma e-resource functions may be strong but need a lot of data to work well, this will require time to input and clean up. There is a long learning curve to learn, because of the large price we feel pressure to maximize the implementation benefits. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
It is not as intuitive as other systems. Often multiple steps are required to complete a task, when it should only take one or two. The terminology is alien to what library staff are used to. If I need to work between fulfillment and resource management, I need to have 2 separate browsers open with a session each. While you can flick between them within one session, you lose what you were working on in the previous screen. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I've been working with ILS systems, as a user and migration planner for over 35 years and I've never know a company that provides as much in constant updates and new features for their customers. Every month they have improvements as a result of customer requests. Also, customer support, although not perfect, is better than any company I've worked with in the past. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Support continues to get worse. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
In relation to our Library Tender, we have spoken to Exlibris about Alma and are quite interested in this product. We have spoken to institutions that have Koha and Sierra also. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
At present no one system stands out as better than the rest. Open source generally as issues of support which would be a concern for this library as we required the product to be hosted and would struggle with technical support. We have recently moved to a fully managed assisted support service for LMS this had improved the customer support service we get, at at higher service cost per year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We're happy with our library management system, it meets our needs in terms of cataloguing, access to Marc record as well as library catalogue for our library users. However, customer support takes increasing amount of time to reply to enquiries and resolve the problems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Same supplier for over 20 years. Financial restraints mean we cannot consider moving at present (indicative costs from alternative vendors are greater than current costs). (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
recent changes at current supplier have worsened their customer service (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Support has deteriorated considerably since the company (Talis) was taken over by Capita. Development deadlines never seem to be met any more and the product is (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
Poor integration with the student records and Inability to delete data from the system without complex scripting processes causes the system to be slow, inaccurate, and difficult to navigate. Its outdated records management causes multiple displays at the discovery level and a poor student experience. Alto doesn’t support effective management of e-resources life-cycle. Its inability to provide granular statistics at School/Course level on borrowing, reservation and inter-lending activity is another drawback in its functionality. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
As we are a small library I would have been happy staying with Amlib. However as it will no longer be supported in the near future we are having to consider other options. We are looking at joining a consortia as the costs of implementing a stand alone system are too high. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
AMLIB is an end of life product that no longer meets the Library Services requirements. We are currently looking to move to a new cloud based vendor hosted ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Biblionix is trusted, reliable and easy to use for staff and for the population that we serve. Super customer service. Couldn't be happier with this product. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Biblionix Apollo continues to be an exceptional product offering excellent value for money. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This our fifth year using Apollo and we continue to be very satisfied with the product and customer support. Apollo continues to the the best ILS on the market for our library. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
have used open source in the past. will never do so again during my tenure. too clunky. linux-based. no support. no local IT depts will work with linux. no interest in hosting a server again. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I'm not able to get reports easily for the data that I want to analyze. It's not a user-friendly system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The employees at Biblionix are amazingly receptive and responsive to ideas and input from libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This company is GREAT at customer service and implementing new ideas and requests. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Note: number of items in library's collection expanded to include digital materials. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We love that every library has the same system release (Apollo), so the vendor staff know the product completely. Biblionix is responsive to user suggestions and push updates based on user suggestions. They have great customer service and are very prompt in their response. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We transitioned to Apollo in April 2019. There are a few things we would like to work with Apollo on to make our catalog better for our patrons. For example, how somethings are displayed in the catalog and adding certain fields we would like to add to our patrons accounts. Overall, we have been happier with the transition and our patrons have liked the new catalog and the new notification features. The new catalog setup has been an adjustment for some of the staff. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Regarding the product itself: the only thing that I preferred about our previous ILS is that each item number and member number were clickable so that when I opened a member's circ log, I could click on the item number to see its record. From the problem log, I could click on the member number to bring up their page to see who has the book, etc. Also, our digital catalog clutters up our catalog search- I'd really like to see a button to click to search just the physical catalog or just the digital. Customer support has been just fine from the vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We tried Ebsco Discovery for three years. Our community did not embrac it. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have enjoyed the ability to tailor the features of Apollo to our library (especially as regards to the functions with our other consortium members). There are a few things that can be implemented to increase the ease of use for the librarians but we have submitted those ideas/questions to the ILS and waiting for a response from them. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Biblionix is regularly updating and adding new features to Apollo that reflect the needs of small libraries and based on feedback and requests from their customers. I can't recommend it enough. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are a stand alone city library that has a consortium borrowing agreement with other [...] Libraries and are currently considering joining/helping form an ILS consortium to create a shared catalog. We are happy with Apollo and were not considering changing ILS's, but would consider doing so in the interest of the [...] consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Biblioniox itself is a very robust software and the support has been phenomenal. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I love our Apollo/Biblionix ILS - I would recommend it to everyone. So easy to use. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I just started working here and have had no other library experience I'm not even sure how to answer most of these questions. I'm not even sure what all of this is??? (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are very happy with Apollo/Biblionix. They have been wonderful to work with, provide helpful improvements to their system from time to time and take great care of us when we need tech support. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The product is pretty easy to use and the customer service is helpful. The consideration of moving to MILS is to be a part of a larger group to share with. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are very satisfied with Atriuum! Their customer service is fast and efficient and willing to go the extra mile to help with any issues. They provide thorough training and are happy to answer questions at any time! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Not on the questions We are now being hosted by our ILS, no servers to maintain. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Atriuum has served us well and we will continue to use them. They are progressive in their development of new modules. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
1.0 for question - How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? Atriuum is very effective electronic management system, we just don't have our own electronic resources, they are all through the Maine State Library. 2.0 for question - Where does this library direct most of its ILS support issues? all support is done through Atriuum or staff only. 3.0 We are extremely happy with Atriuum. Their support is excellent and extremely easy to use and maintain. The reports are perfect and easily customized. Switching to them was the best decision we ever made. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have had so few requests for ILS that when a request is made, we usually purchase the item for the patron. (Library type: Public; collection size: small)
Book Systems has grown significantly in the last few years to meet our needs. I must say they listen to what we need software-wise as well as service to patrons, and they are very quick to respond. If there is a glitch we contact them and they work hard to get to the solution. I like that they are smaller and they still count customer service as their number one priority. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have been with Atriuum /Booksystems since 2008 and find that for the price, they are very responsive to the market and libraries needs. Also they are very responsive to individual customer needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I don't know what ILS is or anything about it. I love Atriuum and will not consider any/or book system. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
VERY VERY SATISIFIED WITH BOOKSYSTEMS(CONCOURSE) (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I would not use another ILS vendor. I have migrated three library systems to Atriuum. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
It is helpful when adding new materials, if most of the data can be added with the ISBN. Most DVDs willnot add to the (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I rarely need customer support. When I do, it is the best. And I'm still finding "goodies" from the last upgrade. I noticed that the company profile states that Book Systems works with school and small public libraries. This program is very intuitive (feels like librarians did the coding) and would be suitable for a large public library. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We began using Atriuum, an open source ILS product in June of 2019 and have answered accordingly. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The questions that have no answers is because 1. we don't use it to manage eletronic resources 2. the customer support is as it always is - wonderful (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
That number of library collection items includes items that are used only for Dual Enrollment students. Atriuum support has been really helpful with finding ways to implement reports. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Atriuums customer service is above and beyond. When they found out I was a new director at the library (through name changing processes) they offered a one on one hour long training of their software which has benefited me immensely. They have wonderful phone customer service as well. They take their time to make sure you get the results you need from the software. We've never had the software go "down" or out of service, and all updates are announced and done outside of library hours. Very happy customers. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Since becoming Director, I have been pleased with the reliability of Atrium. Any problems we ever encounter, the Customer Service people can get us to the correct person to fix the problem. The questions concerning "Print and Electronic" I have rated as 0, as we do not use it for that. It is not a negative response. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Customer service is great. Once in a while we have a glitch where the book we checked in didn't actually check in, but other than that we have been pretty happy. Cataloging is really easy with this system. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Overall, we are satisfied with the level of support from Booksys in customer services. While it does not have everything we want, they do listen and try to incorporate our suggestions when they update their services. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
It's not the most user friendly check out system I've ever used but the reports generated are easy and the customer service is excellent. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
We'd like to see improvements in the way Atriuum handles electronic resources. Support is good for certain types of issues, but for some more complex issues we still have unresolved cases. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Just migrated to this system in December 2019 (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
*items in collection does not include electronic items shared through our consortium using OverDrive. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
n/a (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
As we are run by state library, we have no say in what programs are utilised in our rural library. Most of your questions are not relevant to our little space. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
some technical issues emerged December 2019, no solution so far! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are using Biblio3000 nowadays. The support team is member of the local government, not Odilo. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
LibLime is responsive to our suggestions for development but not very quick in implementing them. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our migration to Bibliovation is very recent, but the tool seems to me a good upgrade over Koha. LibLime has been responsive to issues that popped up. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are responding both for [...] (whose staff primarily use the Carl.X Client interface) and [...] (whose staff almost exclusively use the Carl.Connect Staff web interface) Re: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? : We keep electronic resources out of the ILS - choosing instead to manage them within the discovery layer; therefore we didn't answer this question. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Over the past year The Library Corporation reorganized the Denver office and Support model. We have experienced an overall improvement with response to our support needs and a strong development roadmap. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We're considering the effectiveness of CARL, and if it's worth moving on from the [...] provided ILS system as CARL as implemented currently does not meet the needs and requirements of our service community. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
TLC has a very responsive customer service orientation. However, they need to accelerate development efforts to bring the CARL X product up to modern ILS standards, particularly the staff client and Discovery interfaces. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Collection size includes both physical and e-materials. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are 18 months into transitioning from Sirsi-Dynix WorkFlows to CARL.x. We still struggle with expectations and legacy habits. Within the next 18 months, we expect our consortium[...] to migrate all member libraries from CARL.x to CARL connect for all circulation functions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
In this year, wa are migrating de online catalog to Vufind and the ILS to Koha, but too we will continue using CDS/ISIS in some others bibliographic databases (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
It's a national system covering all public libraries in the country as well as many of the school libraries, so there is a great deal of compromise. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I am having to save money up for a new system. My county can not afford for us to have an updated one. I hope within the year we will be able to receive a new system. It would make everything a little easier to work with it. Since, Concourse is so old and is not compatible with most new computer equipment. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)
CyberTools for Libraries continues to be an excellent provider for our ILS system. CyberTools offers solid customer service and support. I would recommend the company to other libraries without reservation. (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our current ILS system is in no way user-friendly, or intuitive, or reliable. It has been a struggle to maintain, and we are literally counting the days until our contract is up and we can migrate to a different system, as laborious as that process will be. I know there is no perfect system or platform, but I'm afraid CyberTools is driving the librarian who manages it to drink. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 1)
Follett has long been a wonderful library automation vendor. With fully online interface/storage, Follett Destiny has served our needs well. Excellent performance...excellent customer service. Highly recommended. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This year we have begun having issues with our digital resources access through this program. I believe they are working on changing the interface for digital media, but as of right now the access is almost non-existent. They also changed their app for accessing same and it is not up to standards. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
This school is part of the [...]. Everything is done as a district. I do not know if they are considering another system or not. I answered according to what I know now. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have had many problems with access to ebooks and digital audio books through the Follett software. Changes are made to the new Destiny Discover software interface with little or no notice, and sometimes features appear and then disappear, as they were apparently being tested. We are also very concerned about the bandwidth required for the Destiny Discover interface and eBooks and digital audio at the local district/school level and competing with other constantly emerging district/school online services and programs for the available bandwidth. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
I am very happy with our system, i would like to see the searching feature improved as well as finding ebook or audio books easier. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I think the main strength of Follett Destiny is its tech support. The program is great, evolving quite dramatically over the 20+ years I've been using it, but the tech support is superb, and that's what makes this really worth using. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I really like Destiny. It does need work on its method to print spine labels though. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We like Destiny but wish it was not so costly. It takes a large chunk of our budget each year. Customer service is excellent. I am annoyed that updates often happen in August/September just when we start school, which causes problems for orientations because old instructions are no longer correct. I wish updates happened in June or July so we had time to update our student and teacher materials before school began. I also feel that they sometimes roll out new things (like Destiny Discover) before truly working out all the bugs. Discover is much more functional now than it was when it first started. We have a good number of Follett ebooks and audiobooks, and the user interface is somewhat clunky but has been improving in recent years. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We like Destiny, but it is expensive. I wish they had a cheaper option for our small district. Our subscription takes up a large chunk of our budget. We do think it's the best product on the market and like its functionality and reports. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
There will be a new librarian here in 2020 so things might change or evolve. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Listed "library" is actually the district-level resource collection: student textbooks, novels, teacher editions and resources. Issues with ILS provider: 1. New releases that eliminate or do not address reports/processes available in earlier versions. When issue is reported, ILS agrees and says others have reported -- so problem was known. 2. Call-in center help desk and on-line are not fully trained in the product operation. Caller is put on hold while help desk asks either someone else in department or next tier of support. On-line does not address problem but refers to on-line help videos. (Library type: Other; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This school library is part of [...] libraries and as such does not make any independent decisions about ILS products. The district has used Follett Destiny Library Manager since the district began automating the collections and school sites about 20 years ago. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The organization is currently in the process of moving away from an internal, server-based implementation of the ILS and migrating to a cloud-based implementation. This will provide home access to the catalog, access to ebooks, and an integrated discovery product for teachers and students. The new implementation should take place by January 1, 2020. The vendor has been excellent to work with and tech support is better than any we have experienced thus far. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
The products, services, and workflows in our library require a more flexible system than what Destiny offers. Our library would benefit from a system with API capability and the ability to integrate with other systems or programs: reporting functions, different interfaces, mobile self-checkout, acquisitions module, etc. Destiny is a solid and reliable, but outdated, system. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
This number represents the Districts's combined collections (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Any issues I have with the software are fairly minor in my elementary school library, mainly issues with reports and the report building tool. (Library type: Library Personnel; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We currently don't have electronic resources for the students or teachers to check out. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The district makes all the decisions on the products that we use, we have had some issues lately and I have heard they are considering other sources to use. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Destiny is a great tool for school libraries. For our public library, there are many features of concern. There are no security features for patron privacy. Additionally, the ability to add a patron without getting any information past name causes us a lot of difficulty when our funding is based on patron municipality. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
Switching to Sierra ILS on or about January 2021 pursuant to migration to our state-run consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
I wish it was a little easier to customize reports in Destiny. I find the report section harder than our last system which was Winnebago. I also wish we had more ability to customize barcode labels and spine labels. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
It would be nice to be able to use the back button instead of having to start a new search every time you look up a book subject. It would also be nice that if you spell a word wrong it will pull information on resources close to that which has been entered, rather than kicking it out all together. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
We would like a better graphical user interface. A way to show our patrons our great resources in innovative ways. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Customer service deteriorates within the company, Follett. Product support through our own tech department also declines. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Because we are a school library, we are limited on our choices. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The biggest problem that we have with this program, is that it is more for a school library and we are a public library. We have been having issues with the catalog not having titles that we have on the shelf even after adding to the system. This has made doing our inventory difficult. I think that it could be more user friendly, it can be confusing when running reports. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
Very little training offered on all the features and that is frustrating. It takes a lot of time I don't always have to sit and try to figure something new out on our system . (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
DIGIBIB supports Linked Open Data technology (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Los 23.000 ejemplares citados corresponden a los que se hallan de acceso en la Biblioteca Digital de la [...]. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
While EOS was a good choice in 2011, it has not evolved much over the past 8 years. I would like to change systems, but I am afraid of the work involved migrating our current catalogue to a new system. I wish Sisri, who bought EOS, would support this product better. We are only staying due to lack of staff support to migrate. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are seeking a system or suite of systems that will allow us to perform document & content management and other supplementary roles in addition to conventional ILS functionality. (Library type: Corporate; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Currently, I'm very dissatisfied with EOS. It can't seem to run basic reports like what books have not been checked out in specific collections within the last x number of years, or what patrons have not used their card in the last x number of years. This causes a tremendous amount of extra work for me, going through each line of an enormous spreadsheet of thousands of items or users to (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)
We love the hands-on approach from this vendor, which is perfect for our small special library. Our account manager has a good understanding of our organisation and our needs and customises his support and advice accordingly. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
None (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Very responsive and customer-focused. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Customer support representatives for EOS.Web are responsive and timely, but on multiple occasions have not been able to resolve the issues at hand, effectively saying "The system doesn't do that." The limitations of EOS.Web are evident in areas such as record sets, bulk functionality, and reporting, and work-arounds have been required to mitigate problems with cataloging after product releases that have not been well tested. While EOS.Web was an early player in cloud-based ILS's, it feels like the product has not kept pace. We are seeking to migrate in 2020. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
EOS has been a great product for our library. Very affordable and the customer support is quick, efficient and top tier. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Excellent ILS for small, academic libraries, especially those functioning with very little staff. (Library type: Military; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Many of these questions are difficult to answer for us, as we are largely self-supported on Evergreen using open-source. We do not have a vendor except for a small local vendor to help with operating system issues. We do not have an annual maintenance contract. Open-source was obviously challenging to implement, but as time has passed, it has really been good to us in terms of being in control of our own maintenance, development, bug-fixing, operating stability...it just works. Obviously, it is not a path for everyone. We do not currently have plans to change. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Electronic resource management is rated as zero because we have removed electronic resources from our catalog. Vendor merges and inadequate record management practices left the database rife with duplicate records that made updates too time consuming. Electronic resources are now presented solely in the discovery layer, and we have de-emphaized/hidden the catalog web interface for everything but holds and renewals. We rated our current satisfaction level with our ILS as 6 because we are on an older version of Evergreen. Planning to upgrade to the current release over the summer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
When answering questions 1, 5, and 10, they were answered for what we have recently switched to which was Equinox. The rest were answered for using Mobius. Also changed Mobius to Equinox in the current automation system since it is what we are currently using. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We find the system slow and going down on a weekly basis. it has been very frustrating for us. We upgraded all our computers, thinking that would help but that has not been the case at all. The support is good (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
While my responses are for the most part negative, to be fair to Equinox, many of the issues we are having have been due to what I regard as unrealistic restrictions and a poor configuration arising from a lack of knowledge of the ILS in our consortium. I am concerned about the integrity of the system in general, primarily because we've encountered many inconsistencies in how it behaves and what the outcome is for transactions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)
My Library is part of a consortium, the [...]. The ILS is implemented on a consortium-wide basis. [...] also manages the ILS used by all the libraries in the consortium. The entire migration to Evergreen was mismanaged by [...]. The system's functionalities were over promised. Problems were ignored or pooh-poohed. Our holds model still isn't functioning properly. Part of the problem is at the same time [...] was mismanaging the migration, it was also mismanaging a conversion to virtual desktops. There is tremendous lag. Machines crash. I don't know if it is because of the virtual desktops or the ILS. My negative review might be a result of factors outside the ILS's control. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
The Evergreen ILS recently migrated to an internet based interface. The change has been good in many ways since it is easier to use. The negative side is that we have experienced more slow downs than in the past, probably because it uses more of our internet bandwidth. Other than that we are pleased with the overall functionality of the Evergreen ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Reports are not friendly. Patron side is fine. Catalogging in cumberson. I have used other systems that worked better. Staff much preferred the previous system (TLC) for reports and ease of use. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
I live in a rural area and only open 20 hours a week. I'm the only one on staff and have a small budget. I' concerned as the fee rises every year that this system is going to get so expensive that it will cause to my library to start cutting my budget lines that are already minimal already. My salary is even minimal. So, I know technology can be expensive but please consider us rural, remote libraries with funding always less than what we should receive in your prices. If it prices out and I lose what I already have, how can I be useful to my community? I have happy to have access to so many other libraries when I don't have what my patrons want. Thank you, (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Collection count includes shared e-book resources (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The Library already operates with an open source circulation system. The drawback on open source is that smaller rural Libraries don't always get their needs meet. On the plus side - smaller rural Libraries benefit from the resources / financial strengths of bigger urban Libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] provides the first level of support for Evergreen used by the [...] . [...] contracts with Equinox to provide the second and third levels of Evergreen support for the consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Evergreen is an open source ILS that we are overall pleased with. The transition from the xul client to the web client has been a little bit of a learning curve but we are still pleased with Evergreen. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have been on Evergreen since 2011 through [...] and will be moving to the web client within the month. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Using the open source Evergreen (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
I have worked in a variety of library settings with numerous ILS over the years, and the Evergreen system is the best in terms of support and functionality that I have used. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are part of a consortia and have limited say in the ILS chosen at any given time. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
There is a lot of involvement between other Evergreen libraries especially in funding bug fixes and/or system improvements. Monthly meetings are held to deal with them especially with cataloging ones. Equinox has been very good in handling problems. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I do not decide on the ILS. This was decided by the State. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
The [...] system has been amazing across the board. The technical support is excellent with timely communications throughout the support process. The ILS system rarely experiences any downtime and maintenanceupgrades are conducted outside our business hours to minimize impact to our patrons. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are self-hosted since 2017 and provide support to our member libraries directly. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
we belong to the [...] and use Evergreen ILS. The [...] folks are the best! Super support and service at all times. This questions in this survey don't really apply to consortia.... (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The only reason we're considering a migration is because most of the rest of the university libraries in our province have joined a consortial instance of Ex Libris Alma, and we would theoretically benefit from the division of labour. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
ILS is Evergreen/PINES, already opensource, no vendor, no contract. Satisfied with functionality and effectiveness of management of resources. Support is responsive. Being open source, a lot of emphasis is put on staff testing, reading through documents , email and listserves, but library staff do not always have time to sift for information about upgrades, changes, and known issues, so sometimes communication and understanding of front-line staff do not match with that of developers and administrators. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I am the new Director for the Library. I have been in this role for less than a year, thus, my impressions are likely less favorable than my predecessor or staff who may have completed the survey in previous years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Since we get our customer support from the consortium rather than from the vendor, I have not answered the questions about whether the support has gotten better or how satisfied we are. Problems that the consortium can't resolve, they take to the vendor, but we don't have direct contact with the vendor. I will say that our current vendor appears to be providing better support to the consortium than the former vendor. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The vendor is one company. We have not done business with the vendor in 3 years. Support services comes from a different organization, a consortium. This question: (Would the library consider working with this company again), answer refers to the vendor, not the consortium. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We really do not use it for the electronic resources. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
SirsiDynix Horizon is still a functional foundation for our services. Bibliocommons is an excellent patron interface. The ability to customize and create tasks in the Horizon db helps us keep up with patron service and staff demands. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Horizon is not being developed enough, interface is dated. Promised BlueCloud modules are taking a long time to have enough functionality to be usable. The number of SirsiDynix support staff with expertise in Horizon seems to have reduced. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
SirsiDynix is transition into BLUEcloud modules. A few more years will see vast improvements. Customer Support is excellent. Sales staff are very helpful. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
-overall we are happy with the customer service, but it really does depend on who your ticket is assigned to. Some techs are more helpful than others and that can affect your customer service experience on the whole. -the ILS does most of what we need it to, but we do find a lack in the reporting functionality for collections staff (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The biggest issue we have had with SirsiDynix is with their broad focus on their new products to the detriment of their core ILS and discovery products. Enterprise still seems like it is better suited for a mid-2000s internet. They just recently release a mobile version which does not follow industry standards of being a responsive site. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Very responsive and helpful customer service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
I wish Enterprise could be customized more easily, although the company has been making improvements in that regard. I have had a support case open for 10 months. So my experience this past year with support has been disappointing. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Horizon is very old. We don't think Symphony is any better (actually we don't like it very much at all) and BlueCloud is taking so long to implement that we've given up expecting much from it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
SirsiDynix is a good company, but Horizon is showing its age and is lacking in some modern features. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are thankful that our consortium admin can handle most issues that come up. Much better than vendor support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We have been with Sirsidynix for 20 years and are very happy with their products and service. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Enterprise took longer than expected to release with a mobile version. We are just beginning implementation. [...] did not want to launch the new discovery layer without having a version that would be usable on mobile devices. Ideally, timelines would be more accurate to help plan projects. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Horizon is good but old - 20+ years. It's becoming flaky - odd problems are cropping up. There is no way to delete old POs and Invoices, and we suspect as the database continues to grow larger forever, this may be causing some of these problems. SirsiDynix initially releases new products like BlueCloud Analytics designed for Symphony, not Horizon, and we have to wait for the Horizon version to be released, which if frustrating - mainly because they didn't tell us this up front. SirsiDynix continues to be unable to properly support NCIP - it has taken almost a year for it to work with our partner library, and it's still not completely functioning. There seem to be fewer people at SirsiDynix who can support Horizon - they can never retire! SirsiDynix keeps working on new Blue Cloud products, but won't add the features need to older ones like BlueCloud Cataloguing that we need in order to use it (ie linking authorities and printing spine labels). We would love to move to a newer, more integrated ILS/LSP but there doesn't seem to be one that's worth the pain of a migration (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are relying more and more on BC products and sometimes the vendor does not seem quite ready for that to be happening. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Overall Horizon by SirsiDynix is a solid ILS but I would like to see the progression towards BlueCloud happen a bit faster. This product has been under development for several years and does not yet seem fully ready to supplant the core Horizon client. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
As always, Horizon's backend database is its greatest strength. In addition, it has many command line utilities which make automating things easy. Its biggest weakness is the Horizon staff client. It does not conform to standard Windows features such as the ability to cut and paste in all screens. Also, the maximum font size in 12 pt. SirsiDynix has been working on BLUEcloud Circulation for many years but we still don’t have all the features we need to replace the older Horizon client. Overall support has been pretty good. They have a lot of people who have stayed with SirsiDynix for many years. As a result, they have a lot of institutional history they can access when troubleshooting. Sometimes they are slow to respond to issues if there is only one library reporting it. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
NO COMMENTS (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Have been a customer of SirsiDynix for over 20 years and will be joining [...] next year, moving to shared ILMS (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We want to change the ILS but we have no financing for this project. Among other things, for this reason we are also afraid of expensive cloud solutions. We are thinking about the Koh's system, but it also needs to be adapted. We therefore return to the issue of financing and too few staff. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are migrating to Innovative's Polaris product on 01/23/2020. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We very much appreciate the efforts of the [...] staff to help us navigate changes and recommend changes. All of the staff have gone out of their way to make sure we learn and understand Horizon and technology. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Many of the [...] have or will be migrating to Koha with ByWater Solutions as consultant. (Library type: Law; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Horizon is a mature and complete product well suited to a shared ILS environment. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Horizon is an extremely dated interface and very clunky. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 1)
It will be important for them to advance the BlueCloud platform significantly in 2020 so that it is ready for mass release. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
1. Not sure of the intent of the question about acquiring a discovery layer. We have implemented Bibliocommons, but it is time to review our discovery layer. We will do a market scan to identify possibilities, but SirsiDynix Enterprise and Bibliocommons will both be on our list to consider. 2. Our preference not to go to market for a new ILS is based on a desire not to introduce disruption with back end processes that are working well. We hope to see the continued support of the product and to be able to continue to leverage it as a backend for new services and features for our patrons. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Managing your library's electronic resources? I can't really judge this question, as we don't use Horizon to catalog our electronic resources, we use an external SIrsiDyinx component to display them in our online catalog without staff intervention. As part of a consortium that does not share all electronic resources, this allows us to only show what is available to our customers in our online catalog and not what others have available, and ours can't checkout. Customer Support. I can't really give you proper ratings on this since I don't deal directly with the ILS support, I go through our consortium lead who then reports issues to the ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
The 100,000 represents the number of books in the district's 13 schools. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
The support provided is dependent on which customer service representative is assigned to the case. We recognize that the company is growing and they are hiring additional support staff that are not necessarily as well versed in the product as their more experienced CSRs. We like that the vendor has established a user group at our request as we have found commonalities that become priority development items for the company to implement. We suspect that the hosted infrastructure is not being upgraded quickly enough to support all of the new customers that are acquiring the ILS (eg. maximum picture size in OPAC now capped to 50kb affecting image quality and overall appearance) (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Insignia is continuing to work on improvements to meet our library's needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Insignia has been extremely in consistent in what it offers. They have implemented many of our suggestions. They have worked to find solutions when I need something added to the system. Their tech support is fantastic and their response time is very fast. I would not change. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This company has been slow to respond to what their customers want and are sometimes not even aware of these wants. They need to do a better job of working with their clients instead of taking on pet project that then become their focus and forcing customers into using that service instead. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
since Koha is a free open source software the answers to questions about the "ILS-vendor" refer to the support service provider - just like suggested in the footnote (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Using in house tech support many of these questions are not applicable (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Nos gustaría que se desarrollara más el sistema en cuanto a la protección de datos: que el usuario pudiera aceptar si quiere que se usen sus datos para envío de información. Ahora mismo sólo permite aceptar, o no, el contrato con la biblioteca. Porque koha gestiona la protección de datos para ella misma, es decir si el cliente quiere o no aceptar ser usuario de Koha. Por la Ley Orgánica 3/2018, de 5 de diciembre, de Protección de Datos Personales y garantía de los derechos digitales y al Reglamento (UE) 2016/679 General de Protección de Datos (RGPD) es necesario pedir a todos los usuarios que acepten nuestra política de tratamientos de datos, en caso contrario, no podemos recoger sus datos en koha y menos usarlos para enviarles información. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
la biblioteca tiene el sistema integrado koha, el soporte técnico lo brinda la misma área de informática de la institución, no una empresa externa. el koha actualmente aparte de ingresar los recursos tradicionales hemos digitalizado afiches y mapas de la institución y lo hemos incluido dentro del catálogo (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We moved to hosted serving from Catalyst but still using Koha. The transfer went very smoothly and everything is working very well. Very grateful I didn't have to learn new stuff. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our library is currently uses an open source ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Still new with KOHA, so far its OK... (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
El sistema con que cuenta la biblioteca no fue implementado por una empresa, se contrató personal de sistemas para llevar a cabo todo lo relacionado con los sistemas y procesos de automatización de la biblioteca. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We currently use two open source systems in our library. We use VuFind as OPAC and discovery interface and KOHA as open source ILS. We implemented and migrated them ourselves. We do not currently have support services for these systems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
I am very pleased with Bywater Solutions Koha, they have the best customer service, continual forward thinking upgrades, very well priced, they are the best company you could ever want to work with. If you have an unusual request they will find the answer and take care of everything, so I feel they go above and beyond! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our ILS is Koha, and was implemented by Bywater Solutions who manage and host our system. We are very pleased with their services and support (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We will be considering participation in FOLIO when it (or portions of it) goes public (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are very happy with Koha and ByWater support. Previously it was a challenge just get a response from our ILS vendor. With ByWater, we reclassified the collection and tagged all volumes with RFID chips. We further were able to customize our ILS, as well as to support development benefiting our library and the entire Koha community. With our previous ILS vendor we did not even have access to our own data. With Koha & ByWater we have full control, including with the development of features required for our specialized readership. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Since we are remodeling the library, we did a major inventory and weeding over the past two years. Bywater, via the State Library, were very flexible about designing the inventory reports we needed. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
ByWater has been exceptional. Their customer service is beyond top notch. The Koha ILS has been more than adequate for what we need. I would recommend taking a hard look at them before you renew with your current vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are very happy with Koha, managed by ByWater Solutions. But there is an institution-wide push to consolidate services among all departments. Since our main campus library is much larger, we have been asked to migrate to their ILS. This is not 100% decided yet but the likelihood is strong that it will happen in 2020. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are pleased with ByWater Solutions supported Koha. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have implemented an open source ILS so didn't answer the above. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Koha is not intended to manage our electronic resources, hence the lower score for that. We will need to get a discovery layer if we stay with Koha. Budget is the only thing holding us back on that. ByWater Solutions has done a good job of supporting Koha since they did our migration. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I like that Koha is open source and that our upgrade schedule means we get a slew of bugfixes each year. But overall, I am not enamored of our position. It is quite dated and it shows. Who is writing Perl apps these days? Koha is only just now migrating to Elasticsearch as the search engine, five years too late. The UI looks awful relative to modern websites. There are terrible architectural decisions (e.g. instead of a "deleted" bit for database records, copying them into a separate "deleted_{table name}" table) for which we are still paying the price. We cannot index the catalog in Google because bot crawlers make it too slow. That is not a problem for well-designed search systems. I like ByWater's staff and their organizational vision a lot. But we still have support tickets that languish too long when they should be resolved within a day. All this to say, Koha is the best choice for us right now, it's just an awful choice. It's like MARC records. The fact that MARC records are still used should be hugely embarrassing to our profession. It is unacceptable. But we seem unable, for whatever reasons, to make substantive technological progress in some areas. There are multiple greenfield digital repositories that look great, promising. Library catalogs, not so much. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Koha continues to evolve via the wisdom of the crowd. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have been using Koha since 2008 and have absolutely no desire to change. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Very happy with our open source Koha system, the [...] consortium, Bywater, and the assistance we receive. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Migrating to Koha has greatly reduced our annual maintenance costs. The Koha community is very open-minded and collaborative. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
[..] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We currently use Koha, an open source ILS and are very pleased with both it and our vendor, ByWater Solutions. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The migration went well, overall. ByWater is very responsive as a support vendor and we're about to do our first upgrade. So far, I've liked their process for information dissemination about that. The individual people working there are wonderful. The trainers are all fantastic and I've really liked working with them. The data folks are top-notch and we've been really impressed with all the ByWater folks. The migration was not totally seamless - close to the wire, communication got a little dodgy. I think some of it was us learning their culture and some of it was perhaps a difference in expectations. I have some small lingering concerns about the company from those migration bumps. Our project manager was laid off in the middle of our migration, which contributed to the sudden drop off in communication and it seems like they're expanding in new ways. Several months into working with ByWater, I don't think expansion is a problem, but in the midst of a migration when I wasn't sure if we were on track for our go live date, I was much more worried. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
I took over for the previous librarian in March 2019, and am still getting up to speed on the capabilities of our ILS, Koha. I am not completely clear on how Koha can support access to digital resources; that's something I will be looking into in the new year. (Library type: Corporate; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are very happy to have made the switch from III Millennium to Koha hosted by ByWater. It allows us to use a more modern system with robust customization and support the growth of open source in the library community, but without requiring us to staff a full programming department. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Overall we are very happy with Bywater Solutions. There have been a few tickets that we had to really hound them to get fixed this year because we weren't getting any updates or fixes and that is unusual compared to other years when we have completed this survey. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We just completed our first year working with ByWater Solutions, and we have had nothing but a great experience. Our implementation went incredibly smooth, and as a result of Koha our physical circulation is up 144.77% year over year, and .8% versus the last decade. Our print book circulation is up over 60% year over year as well. These improvements have been due to Koha and our ability to integrate an easy to navigate search box into our new website, so students can actually find books! (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
I have only been employed as the Head Librarian for less than 6 months. I can't speak to what the decision process had been prior to my employ. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
KOHA is open source. We are extremely happy with KOHA and their customer support is excellent. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Question #4 is not applicable. We do not use Koha ILS to manage electronic resources because we use Ebsco's EDS. However, I have confidence the Koha product would work. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The library currently has an open source ILS system, which was migrated to last year. It has a number of shortcomings that were not realized during the bidding and testing phase. Some of those have been addressed or overcome since implementation. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
ByWater Solutions has provided us with outstanding customer service from migration through every major and minor change we’ve made or even considered. I recommend them without reservation. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OUR COLLECTION SIZE IS NOW 33595 (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We use Koha administered/supported by ByWater Solutions and we could not be happier. We migrated from TLC in summer 2017. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
ByWater Solutions' support and library of educational resources is the primary reason behind our successful transition to Koha and successful on-going implementation. The timeliness of their response to support tickets is exponentially faster than previous support we were used to and has been a breath of fresh air as well as a boost to our confidence in knowing that what we are putting forward has a dedicated team behind it. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our support team is friendly, helpful and always follows through. It makes my life easier. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
ByWater continues to be a wonderful company to work with!! They have provided us with the best customer service out of all the vendors we partner with. They take the intimidation factor out of open source library management tools. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our ebooks are not linked in our OPAC due to how students authenticate for access through LMS. (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Very pleased with the frequency of updates and information received about them from our library system. Problems that we report are actually worked on and improved. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
In the past we wrote down "approx 6400 items in the collection" but this was an error. We have approx 6400 biblio records and approx 12500 items. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Total number of items includes electronic and print resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
I have only been here 6 months so don't know too much about anything. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I love our ILS. My biggest issue is the reporting capabilities which require advanced knowledge of SQL. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
ILS support staff are always timely implementing any changes with cataloguing metadata (Library type: Church; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our biggest problem with electronic resource integration right now is duplicate matching; Koha doesn't seem to have good options for granular duplicate matching by ISBN. It's all or nothing; can't account for cancelled/invalid ISBNs (020$z), which is problematic for ebook matching. Our support vendor hasn't been able to figure out a workaround yet. I really appreciate the responsiveness of open source software, and Koha in particular, to community bug reports and enhancement requests. I've already seen several things I've reported be fixed through community reporting. It is so different from our experience with a proprietary vendor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
A discovery interface would be helpful, but it is not under serious consideration at this time. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
As a very new solo librarian with no training from the previous librarian a lot of these questions are simply unknown or not applicable to me. I'm sorry not to be of more help. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Estamos terminando la etapa de normalización del archivo de autoridades en el Koha. Luego vamos a implementar el Repositorio para la documentación institucional en DSpace con la misma empresa Theke Solutions que creo que trabaja con ByWater Solutions. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Switching to open source was the best decision in our recorded automation history. Koha is a fantastic product that reduced our IT cost by 90% (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We don't use any company(ILS vendor), just our IT department support us. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We self-installed our system and rely on community support. We have had no issues that required support in the last year. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] Library self-host, so several of the questions I couldn't answer. Koha also only contains print material, other systems handle the electronic resources. So that questions wasn't answered either. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
As stated in previous years, this survey is somewhat difficult to answer for us at [...] Library, since we only use Koha to manage physical materials. Everything else is managed by other systems, under our [...] Findit setup. I've answered 0 for electronic materials again this year since we do not use Koha for this. The number of our collection is the number of printed items. Not including electronic books and articles. ** When answering about vendor, we have a support contract with BibLibre, which we are happy with. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Kindly note our ILS (Koha) was initially installed by an external vendor company and henceforth has been supported by an in-house system administrator. All local development is shared with the Koha community. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We implemented migration from Clavius (LANius) to Koha basically on our own. We are small municipal Library with 10 employees in total (1 IT), but we are helping with spreading this SW (helping with transition to others, translating to Czech, developing) of the Koha ILS itself. Now there is in Czech Republic team of 5-6 evangelists which introduced Koha into other municipal libraries with 250+ implementations of Koha in total (from circa 6500 libraries in Czech Republic). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Después de tres años en producción, confirmamos que Koha cubre las necesidades de una biblioteca universitaria. Tiene gran potencialidad y permite altos niveles de integración con otros sistemas. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have not used Koha's customer support as our school system won't pay for it. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have been using Koha for almost 5 years and we have not encountered any problem. It is the best open-source ILS for us. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Suite à l'installation de Koha à la [...] , nous avons choisi de nous passer de prestataires. Nous travaillons avec un ingénieur développeur et une administratrice fonctionnelle dans l'équipe Koha à la [...]. Nous complétons avec des prestations externes ponctuelles de développement auprès de prestataires divers. Nous travaillons à faire entrer des fonctionnalités propres à notre structure et potentiellement utiles pour tous dans la branche communautaire de KOHA. Nous avons implémenté EDS Discovery service dans Koha via l'API d'EDS pour Koha. Merci et bonne journée, (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We did not use any vendor for our implementation. We have local expertise and did everything on our own. We also actively contribute to Koha through the mailing list (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We did not use a company to migrate. We migrated in-house and support Koha ourselves. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Koha is having a positive momentum in Sweden today. Especially among public libraries where new consortia and joint ventures building on common Koha catalogne is emerging. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We don't have as yet a support contract. All issues having occurred to date were solved consulting the Koha manual or the community (mailing lists). Both are very helpful. We definitely need a solution for our growing digital holdings (mostly e-books). That's why VuFind is under consideration -- meaning at this point, though, that is really only under consideration, no evaluation has taken place yet. This is an OPL and I'm yet busy with the migration from the old and awful ILS (which I'm very happy to have got rid of). I'd like to mention and stress a point concerning Koha. I've worked with some ILS/discovery systems (most of all Aleph and Alma) that are shockingly expensive and inflexible and I can say that Koha - being open source and free - is none the worse for that. Au contraire: Koha is one of the best ILS available and I'm always amazed that our public university libraries spend so much tax money with systems that are by no means better than Koha. Wishing you all the best for this year's survey! (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have migrated from Kobli to KOHA (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have migrate the ILS from Virtua to KOHA since 2017, Currently we are using Koha version 16.05 (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Though we don't have any vendor lock as Koha is a FOSS, however, sometimes it is considered as incomplete as it is not possible to implement all the modules as there are some functionalities that differ or vary to the local context. Moreover, we need to engage in R&D by ourselves for the betterment of the functional and operational processes. When we need any help, we communicate with the Koha technical forum or what other libraries has done. Thank you. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are managing KOHA ILS with our own resources and set of expertise. However, we are considering now to get the support through an outsource organization. We have budgeted the cost and will decide upon its approval status. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Koha ILS is fully implemented by internal library staff. Migration from other library ILS solutions, training support etc are fully managed by the library staff of University of Calicut. We have implemented Vufind discovery system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
There is no problem of using ILS Koha. We ate very satisfied. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our Library has implemented Koha on our own without any help from other companies. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are satisfied with the current ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Actualmente KOHA esta suscrito no con Infoestratégica sino con etechsolutions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
KOHA is an open source system hosted by our vendor. We would hesitate to get an open source system again. The look and feel of KOHA can give an impression of a lack of central design. Attempting to get changes implemented involves the KOHA community and appears to be a more complicated process than getting a change on to the list of a commercial vendor. The community who develop KOHA are naturally tech oriented and library staff who are not tech specialists can find it difficult to interface and communicate with them. The reporting function requires a working knowledge of SQL and generating reports is not straightforward. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We have already implemented an open source LMS. It is Koha. I think it is less likely that we'd consider an Open Source LMS in the future because there has been some disappointment with Koha. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Koha-Kobli is an open-source project that it was already finished. Librarian staff carry out the maintenance of the SIGB. None external company works for the library in the maintenance. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We fairly much has to do what the larger [...] campus does, although if we can figure it out, we would like to reconnect with the [..] local consortium, which also uses KOHA, but the vendor is BywaterSolutions, which seems more robust. HOWEVER! it is possible the features we currently use are chosen by the tech services person in [...] . More research would be needed. :) (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We do not load records for subscription ebooks or videos into our catalog. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
n/a (Library type: Business; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I am new to this job so this system, my only issue is when I run reports I get error messages quite often. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Some questions suppose a service provider, something we do not use. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Koha's Prosentient is a very good low cost solution to implement a basic library management system (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are in a process of starting our work with libraries owned by government. These libraries have zero automation and we are approached by the government of Sindh and Punjab to provide consultation and solution with regards to automation and digitisation of the public libraries. We are actually looking for a solution which is easy to implement and is open source . Should be with affordable as well as it is for public libraires. (Library type: Special; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
PTFS were very professional, responsive and had a very good understanding of the technology underlying the product. They liaised well with our IT department during the implementation. When we have had issues with other products that plug into Koha they have been very responsive investigating the issue and providing the right kind of data for the other supplier to resolve the issue. They worked closely with us and third parties. Support for Koha has only been in place for 1 year so it has neither improved nor got worse. We chose Explorit because it was vendor neutral as we had had problems with our discovery product in the past with information sources from another supplier not being displayed correctly. We need to do some work removing some electronic sources which overwhelm the search results to improve the search results and make it easier for users. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our current ILS, Kuali OLE, is end of life and we feel there is therefore no benefit to evaluating it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large)
Basic functionality is sound. Somewhat lacking in handling electronic resources. Reporting modules are sound, though Im pleased to say they are improving in this area. Poor response to our Library website redevelopment in terms of building a responsive website interface (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Extremely responsive and helpful customer service (Library type: Library Personnel; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have been using the Libero ILS now for 25 years. The product has developed considerably over that time and we have become increasingly happy with its performance & level of innovation. The current level of customer service is also excellent. We also feel as users that we have a high level of input into the products on-going development. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Generally very responsive to all queries (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We left evergreen because it was coasting to much and it was not meeting the library needs. So we went to library world. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
We continue to be impressed with the transparency of the company in regard to its product development and road map for the future, as well as their responsiveness to customer feedback and enhancement requests. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are currently working with the company for an embedded MARC editor, batch record set edits, and unlimited access to reporting in future releases, all of which are currently lacking. They do seem to be responsive to our concerns. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have been very happy with Library.Solution. The price is great, too. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] shares the catalog with the local school system, [...] , and an non-profit learning enrichment center Motivate Our Minds. All locations share items back and forth during the school year and appear in a joint catalog. TLC has been easy to work with as we established the shared ILS system in 2016 and as we have worked to maintain it to date (2019). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The system is only compatible with Windows when we are a Mac school which is very inconvenient. Support for Windows 7 will be stopping at the end of this calendar year which is only 1.5 months away and yet they have not created a proper installation package compatible with Windows 10. When my computer crashed recently the reinstall process was unnecessarily cumbersome because of this. They have created a better cataloging tool but I don't think it's available in Canada. Currently the L.S. Cataloging system is not great. There are too many notifications after saving a record, sometimes it will catalog a physical book as an ebook and it's very time consuming to figure out which fields to change to make it a regular book, and there are errors that won't allow you to save records sometimes and it's impossible to figure out what exactly the problem is so you just have to start over because it's not worth the time to try to understand. It is so outdated and clunky and makes cataloging a chore. It's archaic. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
In the beginning The TLC software was great and did everything it was supposed to do as it should. As time has marched on and advancements came, the software continues to evolve but never feels complete and numerous work-arounds are put into place to shore up its failings. Specifically the LS2 Staff interface and its loss of functionality from the installed client software. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
I'm very happy with TLC our current library automation system. They have been very responsive to our requests. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We just switched from LS2 to Apollo on December 27, 2019. I had strongly considered moving to Koha but found that my consortium had a group discount in place with Biblionix. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Although Library.Solution for Schools is not the most elegant product, their customer service is excellent and we have a professional onsite to support our ILS. We are thankful for our great vendor relationship. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
It would be very helpful if vendor staff worked for a significant period of time in a public library to learn and understand the real issues we face. I don't think they realize how difficult using their systems is for many of our public users. The software mindset is not the same as the general populations'. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Unfortunately is is a cost issue as well as a customer service and product issue that we would consider a new ILS. We see where there could be improvements in the program, have continuously made suggestions and no changes are being made. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Not at this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
The OPAC needs significant improvement. Natural language searching should be a given at this point, as well as accommodations for misspellings. No one should have to learn to use an OPAC anymore than they have to learn to use the Google search engine. We are remotely hosted and our catalogers often have their program quit working. It could be minutes or hours before they are back up. Customer services says that it is a known bug that TLC is still trying to fix. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are going to migrate at the end of the school year. Reasons include cost, cataloging module, and the way both vendors are approaching the design and features of the system. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Provides an awesome backend system in support of the public side. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
The reason I have dropped the rating for our ILS is that the system has been going down multiple times in a given time period. It is generally quickly resolved, but a couple of time it has taken 45 minutes to an hour to resolve. That down time is incredibly detrimental during busy times in the library. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our LS System works. It does 95% of what we want well. The interfaces are smooth and polished. the PAC's are polished and refined. Really the cost is what has become the only factor these days. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We feel like the PAC is one of the friendliest solutions out there, although TLC could do more for the mobile version of the site. There are some issues with discovery in the circulation module, but overall the staff are satisfied. We like the granular SSO approach TLC is pursuing with their usernames. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
TLC's customer service is excellent! They work with you to troubleshoot issues and to find solutions that meet our un unique needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
For the price, LibraryWorld is a very functional ILS for a small library. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
LibraryWorld is a good enough software for my school library, which operates on a shoestring budget. I wish that there were more options in terms of bulk editing of marc records, and more options for schools only (ability to mark as lost all books not check in at the end of the school year.) I have used Library World for 10 years, and I still haven't found a better low cost solution. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
LibraryWorld is a solid ILS for a solo librarian. It's easy to maintain and use. Patrons also find the interface easy to understand. It was also one of the few solutions that came in under our price point. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are a small library and Library World works for us, especially the price. It has its quirks, but we are small enough to manage them. Customer service, if I have a question, is slow. I always have to leave a message, as nobody seems to answer the phone. They do get back to me eventually, but we play phone tag before I get a person. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
LibStar, developed by Jiangsu Library Star Software Tech. Co.(founded in 2015，Nanjing), is the first Alicloud based Library Service Platform（LSP）in China.[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Automation is one of the basic needs of any library. As our university's library is one of the leading libraries of the country so keep on implementing emerging technologies for the purpose of meeting information and research needs of the university's users efficiently. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
411.000 ejemplares en diferentes soportes físicos. 658.000 títulos digitales indexados en 90 bases de datos bibliográficas. Las dificultades para seleccionar y adquirir un SIGB radican en los altos costos (implementación y soporte), el soporte posventa para América Latina y las barreras idiomáticas. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Falta de un informaticom especifico para biblioteca y fondos para su contratación. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Mandarin provides a very affordable and versatile system. It continues to improve and has a robust circulation and cataloging module. The public interface needs a bit of improvement to be visually appealing. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Part of [...] migration to Ex Libris Alma and Primo. Go live date is June 1, 2020. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)
Millennium does well for our size and with basic functionality. Where it is limiting is in system integrations and this is becoming more and more critical to our work. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)
Esta cifra incluye los documentos electrónicos del catálogo sin fondos físicos (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our library is part of a 9 library consortium with a contract with Innovative for Millennium software. We will be migrating to a new system in June 2020, although not all of the libraries will switch to the same system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
While providing a solid, reliable product, Innovative's Millennium is now very dated. Sierra might seem like the next step but increasingly in an open source world it looks out of step. Innovative's customer service has worsened in the past few years and is now to be avoided rather than engaged with. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Alma will not segment their product. It's too expensive and we don't want to pay for what we won't use. We are hopefully watching FOLIO being implemented by academics close to our institution. We are not inspired to move to Sierra, where nothing has changed from Millennium and now with their looming acquisition by ExLibris, we'll just see what happens next. TIND is a less likely candidate, but it's still on our list. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
He contestado yo por delegación de la [...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
Millennium has done its job well for [...] over the years but as an organization, we have outgrown the current platform and require a solution that can help us grow our organization especially with the discovery layer. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We just signed a contract for Koha from ByWater. Millennium is a good system but isn't being developed further. Perceptions were that Sierra isn't much different. We have had our reps from Innovative change several times over the last few years which possibly hindered our desire to stay with Inno. Innovative did come up with several competitive offers to either keep us on Millennium or migrate to Sierra but since both products seem stagnant and customer service seems to be declining. (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
There is a bug with Milennium and SSO that will never be resolved. The solution is to migrate to Sierra or some other ILS. Millennium will never run on a MacOS higher than 10.12.x. Proxy server not being developed anymore. There has been an overhaul with Customer Service structure. Closing more tickets and system for escalating tickets has improved satisfaction this year. Company viability was a concern, however, since the purchase of the company by Ex Libris, that concern has diminished. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Estamos en proceso de selección de nuevo sistema. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Minisis Inc. has great customer service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We do not have a ILS system. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 0)
The past system the we had was Follett. The county server suffered major failure due to the Ryuck virus in the end of October. We are in hopes that something affordable will be found and put into place by the end of April. Otherwise it has not been easy to check in and out materials or access data for patrons. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 0)
[...] (Library type: School; collection size: very small)
I think our ILS serves our needs and our customer's needs well. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] Offices. OPALS is our interface for the union catalog, and as a stand alone ILS operates in 15 individual library sites with the OPALS branch-level product. Overall reception has been positive. Company still needs to address ED-LAW 2D requirements to scrub circulation data. There are always things users wish vendors did better or more timely, but the satisfaction and response time has been outstanding. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The number of items in our library collection (union catalog) varies from year to year. In 2018-2019 we did a major clean-up with the vendor's help to eliminate duplicate records. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We love the team at MediaFlex/Bibliofiche! (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
updates often do funky things to my catalog that are extremely frustrating, portions of ILS system do not work within my district, updates make changes and we are often not made aware of changes screen just looks different the next day. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are very satisfied with OPALS. They are constantly adding and improving to stay up with the changing times. Their customer service is beyond great! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Money is always a problem in this district. I doubt that they would invest any future monies into changing or updating the system. This district does not value libraries. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS is simple to use, provides periodic updates, is reposnsive to questions, and reasonably priced. (Library type: Synagogue; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
WE ARE VERY HAPPY WITH OPALS. WOULD NEVER CONSIDER MIGRATING TO A DIFFERENT PLATFORM. OPALS MEETS ALL OF OUR NEEDS AND THEN SOME. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Very pleased with the OPALS product and support. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Outstanding support and excellent system. This library had never been automated. OPALS support group set up our system and provided free, professional cataloging and processing advice. (Library type: Library Personnel; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS has worked well for us. Technical support has been efficient and attentive. I hope they develop stronger interest in developing their self-service circulation module--it's adequate but VERY basic. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I am very satisfied with this product and have no intention to migrate to another. However, I am open to other additional features. Please send me more information on Discover Interface and Open Source ILS. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS continues to update, improve, and add new features to meet our ILS present and future needs. OPALS continues to provide excellent customer service and training. I love OPALS and will continue to use them. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The customer support is outstanding. Techs are quick to respond and always go above and beyond what is needed. I love the newsletter to update us on changes. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I am a HUGE OPALS fan! I Love how the product is constantly inovating itself using the feedback of it's library customers. The customer service is great! My school district migrated to Destiny but the High School stayed with OPALS because we recognize what a creative product OPALS provides. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Online documentation is excellent. Phone help is excellent. Downtime is minimal. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS has been easy to work with and I am satisfied with the product. It is an excellent value. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We cannot be more please with the OPALS system. All issues are regarded as high priority and resolved quickly with accuracy. Update suggestions are implemented in a timely manner. Great company to work with! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have no electronic holdings but the question asked does not allow for that answer. Search functionality could be improved. For example, allow for spelling errors (students are not great spellers). The term "exact title" still draws any title with key words in it which is often a long list of titles when looking for one title. Perhaps offer synonyms for search terms that don't show results. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We migrated to OPALS in 2017 and have had nothing but a positive experience. OPALS is outstanding to work with and I would recommend them to anyone. They are also much less expensive to implement. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our cultural centre library has used OPALS for fourteen years. The collection has tripled and resources in many formats added. The system updates have kept pace with these changes and the service is still outstanding. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our library serves a bilingual (English/French) school community. OPALS has been and is an excellent research and management technology for us. The customer service is "formidable" (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Top marks for dependable system and tech support ! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our library catalogs and maintains a historical children's literature collection and for that, OPALS serves our education faculty and students very well. We cannot rate OPALS' digital technology options because we do not manage e-resources at this time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have been using OPALS and working with Harry Chan and the company for a number of years. Without a doubt, they are the best open source ILS for school libraries. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We love OPALS. Great service from our school library system cooperative and the company. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
"Still happy after all these years" (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our library houses print only and this system manages the collection very well. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The system is comprehensive, hosting is dependable, updates are regular and relevant and technical support is competent and courteous. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We implemented the system in 2005. OPALS manages library collections and interlibrary loan services for 61 libraries in our region. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Customer service is excellent beyond explanation. Service to rectify any issue is prompt and immediately addressed. I have called in pure panic and the issue was resolved right away. No other companies provide this kind of service! OPALS is a company that listens to its customers and they value your opinions. If you have a suggestion, that suggestion is thought about, discussed, and often implemented in a future update. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Great experience migrating to OPALS in 2019. Technical support was exceptional which made the migration seem effortless. Very pleased with the functionality, cost and customer support of OPALS. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Excellent system for our library and outstanding technical support/ (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The system enabled us to catalogue our library books, LP records, DVD, cassette tapes and archives that our members can access and reserve at a sustainable services cost. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Students and teachers love "one-stop" access to digital and print resources. Technical support is top notch. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have been satisfied customers of the OPALS system for years. They are incredibly responsive to customer requests and concerns. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS adapts well to our diverse, international learning community. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our library migrated to OPALS in 2007. Our services have grown and diversified these past twelve years and the system has and continues to accommodate change. Technical support is timely and competent. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Logiciel et service formidable! (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Outstanding system and service. The system has integrated our digital database resources well. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are very pleased. More libraries in our region plan to migrate next year! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our library has used the system for ten years. It serves our community well. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are impressed with the system's updates. They even pay attention to elementary school librarians! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are just getting started. System setup and training was done on time by efficient staff and library professionals. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS staff migrated the data from our previous system in one day. They provided Webinar training sessions that made it possible for us to use the new system in just a few days. This is our first year so we cannot compare this year's service with previous years. We can say that the new system is a big improvement over our previous ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have added streaming video resources to our print, eBook and information databases. Our college students and professors like accessing and authenticating these resources from one platform. System support continues to be outstanding. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
A college library recommended OPALS to us. After investigating the program and its support, we adopted it and are happy with this choice. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The union catalog manages resource sharing (ILL) for 88 member libraries in our region. Our consortium supports the server and software updates and support is provided by the vendor. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Customer service/tech support is terrific. This morning, requested support around 9:13 and received a competent response around 9:45 ! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This is our first year. The system was set up and our data was imported quickly. We received excellent training from a the supporting company and are very pleased so far! (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
They respond so promptly are a true professionals! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The system has served our bioethics research community well. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We just migrated to OPALS and my organization likes what OPALS has done. The site works well and it's very user friendly. The tech support and professional librarian instructor was outstanding. (Library type: Museum; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We thought data migration would be complicated and expensive. We were wrong ! Their tutoring services and system tech support are awesome. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
The program adapts well to our community's cultural context. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The libraries in our region use the interlibrary loan application customized for their specific needs. The system is reliable and support is outstanding. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
We had to merge several libraries which doubled our holdings. Their staff made that challenge easy at no extra cost! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are very satisfied with our OPALS Library system. It is the best solution for us and we are volunteers. OPALS actually has more functionality than we need since we are not set up to use the circulation part of the program. We use it just for the catalog and our collection is hosted by OPALS so is available by users from home as well as on site. They have always been VERY quick to respond to our requests for help. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
OPALS is a wonderful system. It offers thorough, courteous, timely support, and tutorials. They are constantly upgrading their product by being open to taking suggestions from users. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have been very pleased with OPALS. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Have been very pleased with both the OPALS product and the service we have received from its developer and supplier Media Flex for over a decade. Tech support, as always, is very prompt. Most reports and tools are fairly intuitive while providing flexibility. Company seeks input from customers on development directions and listens to recommendations. We are an all-volunteer library. Although our library has not made use of any custom webinars during the past year, I have tried to make sure that other key volunteers are aware of the support available to them through both YouTube videos and free custom training during any future transition of responsibilities, planned or unplanned. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
While OPALS mostly meets our needs, interacting with their support is very frustrating. They tend not to thoroughly read my emails, deny that a problem exists unless I explicitly provide screenshots, and then propose "solutions" that don't meet our needs. It feels like gaslighting. I'm not sure if it's a gender issue or that they don't really understand the needs of libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Thank you for this. Our Library needs more open ressources and other support like training in modern library automation sharing ressources using a platform, this will help us working better and betterer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Some of the questions are not applicable. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are very disappointed that Innovative is not going to continue with develpment on Polaris products. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
As the system has been upgraded, accessing the day-to-day material has become longer and registering through an e-card location has increased the amount of time to register a patron in the juvenile class. Overall, in my opinion, the Polaris system doesn't work as well as it should. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
There should be a 'no change' option for the question about customer support better/worse than previous year. [..] does not use a discovery system - can you update the public profile accordingly? (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
The support staff are GREAT. The sales staff need to improve. Information and pricing on new products, for example, INSPIRE, is lacking. The turnover of staff is reflected in mixed messages. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are part of [...] and, as such, have no plans to add or change - that's a consortium decision. I have no knowledge of the company's customer support, etc. I only deal with [...] . (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
The price points since the acquisition by III are not great but the products, support, and service remain fantastic! (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
I am completing this for one of 9 branch libraries. All numbers reported reflect the entire system and not one location. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] is in the process of implementing Polaris. I don't feel that I can answer questions regarding it at this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium)
Our current ILS was produced by a company that no longer exists, having been bought out. But the new vendor has no interest in developing it further, apparently. We are stuck with this for the time being; the next time that a migration is contemplated, i expect that the library will consider other alternatives. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
As in previous years, we've been very happy with the technical support we receive from Innovative, but very unhappy with customer service. Our technical site manager responds to our questions and work tickets quickly and efficiently, fixing problems as they arise in a very timely fashion. Customer service, on the other hand, is slow to respond. Requests for quotes for add-on products to our ILS go unanswered or we will only receive the quotes after repetitive follow-up requests. It's like we are asking to spend money with the company and they aren't interested! (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Stat for local collection only (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
There are several questions that I cannot answer, overall Polaris was much better before it was sold to III. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The Polaris tech support is great. The other Innovative customer support is terrible, basically non existent, despite numerous conversations I had with Innovative management about customer support services issues, including with the new CEO, at the 2019 IUG conference. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
As a school library currently using an ILS made for public libraries (which is a requirement to be part of our consortium), it is hard to correctly rate the ILS. I rated it for my purposes, as a school library. I'm sure it works much better for public libraries but it is missing key functions that I would like to see. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 3)
We have not had to ask for customer support. We are a tiny library within a large consortium, we really don't have a strong opinion or control over the ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We share our ILS (not the discovery layer) with the local public and community college libraries; the public library is the "owner" of the system. We are not aware of any plans at present to consider a system migration. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
The system we belong to is great! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We use Polaris managed by a country library through a shared system. We are an independent library in the shared system. We have issues with the product. We do not have direct control of the product. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
This survey was very difficult for me to answer. I have only been with this library for 2 months now. My first job with a library. And still learning how it all works. But I do look forward to your survey next fall. thank you (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
It is difficult to keep information from electronic resource vendors in sync with our catalog's holdings. There are also flaws in how the catalog deals with some issues found in print resources that are not perfectly executed with a consortium in mind (particularly multi-volume records). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
This is a small branch library of the [...] . Consortium staff deal directly with ILS vendor for support. Would like open source product but would need Consortium to also be onboard, and currently do not have dedicated paid Consortium IT staff. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
R&D for Polaris has waned as more and more of the enhancements coming out center around the LEAP product. Our perception is that percentage of LEAP vs Polaris is heavily weighted towards LEAP. The philosophical change can be easily marked with Innovative's purchase of Polaris. It is a disappointment to those libraries who are champions of the traditional Polaris ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The Approximate number of items in the library's collection represents all items for the Consortia One area of material management that the ILS does not handle well is items like Book Club Kits or non traditional items, like telescopes, digital projectors etc. The traditional system of checking out the item immediately or placing a hold and waiting for the item to be returned does not work. We need the ability to schedule a checkout for a certain day to make sure something like a Book Club kit is available when the group needs it. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I'm not sure how to answer these questions when we have only had the system for a few days. (Library type: Public; collection size: small)
This is the only survey response from the [...] as a whole. So when you're recording please disregard other survey responses that you sent to our individual branches. Also, it's hard for us to know about our level of confidence in the company since it was just purchased by Ex Libris. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Innovative Interfaces has recently signed an agreement to be acquired by Ex Libris, a ProQuest company. A little uncertain what that will mean in the future. Usual promises of maintaining current platforms, etc. Time will tell! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We migrated to Polaris from Horizon primarily for the LEAP staff interface. We had heard from other libraries that support wasn't great, and so far that's what our experience shows. While technically proficient, support is very slow at responding. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Polaris itself is a good product. However, quality of documentation and support has gone down since acquisitions by III. BiblioCommons, while an improvement for search, does not take advantage of all the functionality in Polaris, which is frustrating. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Polaris customer support continues to be top notch. The Site Managers, Team Leader, and Manager are all super responsive, reliable, and knowledgeable. Other departments of the business (sales, accounting, etc) are about on par with other vendors. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Polaris staff are fantastic. Not as much respect for the Innovative folks. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Since Innovative Interfaces Inc. is being acquired by ProQuest, I am remaining neutral on this for the time being. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Polaris product has become extremely expensive. Our librarians all like the Polaris product, but the consistent high rise in cost over the years (future projected cost increase) has caused us to opt out of this program. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We just renewed with Innovative for a 3 year on-premise contract, and will be moving to hosted Polaris at the end of that term. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Number reflects physical items and ebooks through Cloud Library ... does not include other items in e format. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Would be nice if there was an app for users to access resources. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are happy with the parts of the product we use. Ever since III, Inc. bought Polaris the customer service has been spotty. In particular, the sales rep has been less than candid in pricing services. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The library belongs to a consortium, which selects the ILS and interfaces with the vendor. I would have answered N/A to several of the questions, had that been an option. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have not had this ILS very long, so many glitches and education is still needed. We have an outstanding group of people helping us (ODIN) get through the problem areas. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Polaris has been super for us. I feel their customer service is good. The price point of the annual maintenance fee may force us to look elsewhere. Other libraries in our area have migrated to systems that have a less expensive maintenance fee. I will be talking with these libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I feel that most of these questions pertains not to my small library but to the [...] who oversees the operations of the Polaris System. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The main issues that we run into with Polaris is that we are a Library in a consortium environment. Polaris seems like it is better suited for a library system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our Head Office makes all the decisions for which I am very grateful (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Be nice if Polaris/iii wouldn't get bought out consistently (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are using hosted Polaris with LEAP for almost all circ tasks and theorize that we are one of the few libraries doing so since Support seems pretty well embedded in locally hosted clients. The Support team itself is responsive and has taken steps to streamline the customer experience with support tools. They are kind of "super admins" but appear to have almost no sway with the product team that decides what bugs to fix and features to implement. The web interface and the cloud are not being developed under an agile, customer-centric model (like that used by Bibliocommons). So expect web code but none of the agile development that should come with it. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Desktop Polaris is robust, but soooo clunky and dated. I hate that it only works with Internet Explorer. Conversely, the multi-web-browser-compatible LEAP product still isn't fleshed out enough for my staff to convert to it. I can't address Polaris's customer service because we are part of a consortium and the consortial staff are our points of contact. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Since we're part of the [...] consortium, we deal with the [...] system administrators, not Polaris directly. In spite of this I think Polaris does a good job of keeping on top of issues, and there have been occasions in the past when the [...] system admin has had to enlist Polaris' help with issues, and they've always been able to resolve them. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
I am satisfied with Polaris system (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Cannot reasonably answer questions related to the relationship between the library and the vendor as all such matters are handle at the library system level. Implementation, maintenance, upgrade, and support are all handled by the library system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I don't have much choice in what system we use. This is more appropriate to be directed to the staff at [...] Headquarters. I just use what I've been given. I am unaware of contracts or anything! Many of these questions don't even apply to branch librarians in tiny little libraries. The system was installed before I was even hired a year ago. My answers are not going to reflect much of anything. Perhaps an "N/A" option would be a good idea. I have no choice of whether or not we migrate to a new automation system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are part of a library system and they choose was database we all use. So some of your questions seem unfair to comment on because we don't purchase the data base independent as an individual library. Upgrades, and supports are also all handled at the systems level. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The approximate number of items in the library's collection above, as listed in our Annual Report, includes access to digital titles through Hoopla, RBDigital and OverDrive. Physical items = 141,147 (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Most decisions are based on the advice of our Library System. They do extremely well on our behalf. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Pubic service staff use Polaris Web Client to serve customers which has been pretty helpful. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Keen to learn how Ex Libris will handle Polaris. (Library type: State; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We do not have direct contact with the vendor. We report issues to [...]. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We've had great customer service this past year with our assigned site manager going the extra mile to try and make things work. We also still love our products. I think the biggest thing that looms for us with our current ILS vendor is seemingly the lack of stability in the overall company. They just went through another buyout, so we're hopeful that this will be the right home for an ILS that we feel is superior in many ways to others. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our libraries will probably not choose to continue with EDS partially due to difficulties implementing it and partially due to changes in resources available through the State Library (switched from Ebsco databases to Gale, which makes EDS less seamless.) (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
The DB/TextWorks backend is highly customizable in all components even for solo staff with only intermediate technological skills and there is no need to request vendor support for batch updates or new metadata fields. We are able to have separate cataloging / metadata options for bibliographic items, physical artifacts, and projects (our implementation does not use MARC, though). This year's upgrade of the Presto OPAC greatly improved the mobile interface and responsive design. Vendor has been very responsive to feature requests. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We moved to this software so that our whole agency could be on the same platform. This software was originally designed for archaeological and museum collections. The company's emphasis, product development, and training seems to continue in those directions. The library module has some key deficiencies for us but there doesn't seem to be any interest on Proficio's part in making changes or developing it further. There are always priorities in software development and unfortunately the library portion of ReDiscovery does not seem to make the cut. In addition, the discovery interface is pretty terrible and we have successfully fought our IT department in the public roll-out. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
ResourceMate customer service is outstanding. We will continue with it as long as we remain a small stand alone facility. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Sebina Next is the new and latest version of a software that started in '90, being enough flexible to fit to emerging features. This ILS software was choosen by our Regional Cultural Institute and we are satisfied, even if all products are improvable, so it earns a 8 and not a 9 valutation. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Sono necessarie alcune precisazioni. 1) rispondo non per una biblioteca, ma per un intero sistema che raggruppa tutte le biblioteche dell'Università degli studi di Milano (17 biblioteche principali ed una decina di biblioteche minori); 2) Sebina OpenLibrary rimarrà in esercizio solo fino alla fine del 2020; abbiamo già scelto il nuovo LSP ed il nuovo discovery tool, che verranno implementati nel corso del 2020, entrando in esercizio tra fine anno e inizi del 2021; 3) i 2.200.000 elementi presenti nelle collezioni delle biblioteche non comprendono le risorse elettroniche. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our ILS is managed by [...] , so we have to contact them when something happens. It seems like there have been more than a few hiccups lately. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Things have improved with Sierra in terms of customer support but we are still using a java client instead of cloud based system which is our preference. Sierr 'does the job' and makes good use of APIs for third party integration but it could do a lot better. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
this is a culture challenge, not a technology challenge (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)
We are very excited about Innovative Interface's new discovery product, Inspire. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
OCLC pricing is awful. For a company listed as a "nonprofit" cooperative, they do a fantastic job of demonstrating that they have a near monopoly on the information and services that libraries seek to access through them. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
In the spring of 2019 we began the process of looking for a new library services platform (specifically a SaaS solution), beginning with the issuing of an RFI. Our thinking around SaaS has largely been based on our experiences with these services through applications like Summon and ContentDM (which we migrated to OCLC's cloud solution about a year ago). Unfortunately budget considerations have delayed the issuing of an RFP but we hope to be able to move this project along in 2020. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Innovative technical support has gotten somewhat better, more responsive to tickets, in the past year. Their sales support, however, seems non-existent. I have no idea who our sales rep even is and have not heard from anyone in approximately 2 years since we signed and implemented our most recent ILS/Discovery bundle agreement. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
It would require a reliable third-party service company, and educating the administration to trust such a company for us to go open source. The latter seems unlikely at this point. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
I have no idea of the library we work through would go with an Open Source ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our library is actively evaluating a new discovery interface and index, for implementation by summer 2020. Although we are not actively evaluating a new ILS, library staff is interested in considering our options with a look toward migrating within 3-5 years. We are long time Innovative customers, but find the value of their products relative to the amount we are spending on them steadily decreasing over the years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
Because of our participation in the [...] consortium, we are required to use the ILS chosen by [...] (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
We were exceptionally happy Sierra/Encore users until 2 things happened. Our 5 year contract needed renegotiation and Encore stopped supporting many 'connectors'. Efforts to work with Innovative to renegotiate our contract were difficult and drawn out. It was hard to tell what was happening and that's so unlike our previous experiences with them. It was very disheartening especially since we are/were such huge fans. There was confusion about the new product and if we should migrate to it. In all I think the timing was wrong but they did very little to try and keep our business. Parallel to this was the deterioration of Encore's ability to harvest the connectors to give our users the look and feel of Discovery. Here too, just a total lack of communication. Ticket after ticket submitted with no resolution until they came to present to us and told us that Encore connectors wouldn't be supported. WMS surprised us, we didn't expect to like the product as much as we did. They worked with us on costs and we are in the prep stage for a June 2020 migration and go live. We are excited to see how the knowledge base works with electronic content. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Concerns with III: 1. Price of product - too much for a catalog system only, 2. Bugs in product - too many important functions break with each upgrade. I filled out the survey but it is with input from Jane Costanza, Head of Resource Management and Discovery (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)
We performed a market survey during FY 2018-2019 due to the need to decrease our annual maintenance costs of our III ILS. During this review, we determined that we would need a consultant to actually migrate, and so entered a 5-year arrangement with our current vendor that would hold costs to some extent, and plan to do another review in year 3, hire a consultant and issue an RFP subsequently, and potentially migrate to another system at the end of our 5-year agreement. Lucidea was the system that we most favored, but they have a LOT of work to provide features for a traditional academic library that we require -- almost all of their current clients are corporate, law firms, museums, etc. (Library type: Law; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have a really hard time working with Innovative. Some of the customer support people are really good, but ones doing upgrades are really overbooked. We have also had a really frustrating time working with sales and the front office with billing and invoices. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Sierra is problematic. Customer support is near non-existent. At least, 5 years to have a way to do inventory...and it still doesn't work well. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We just switched to Sierra because III made the cost very attractive, and we knew it would be an easy implementation. We'll stick with Sierra for the foreseeable future (it will probably be 5 years before we'll consider an ILS migration again). At that time, we'll probably seek quotes from Alma, ByWater Solutions (Koha), III, and others, depending on the market. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
III's support has become less personal so interactive resolution of issues has become more difficult. We do definitely benefit from III's offices abroad in that we can request a software upgrade and it is done by the Dublin, Ireland office before we are open for business here in California. We are very pleased with III's INN-Reach product but growth of a consortium is hampered by III's high pricing. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Over reliance on legacy software. Poor or unresponsive technical support, albeit improving. Core functionality missing; extra "products" that should otherwise be in the base software, such as scheduling imports and exports, or bibliographic link maintenance. No native SAML support. Really needs to catch up on the SSO game. Still very happy with some features, though. Create Lists, SQL Access, and REST API functionality are all great, and I wouldn't want to give them up. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
As Innovative Interfaces' support quality continues to decline and development of features do not keep up with our needs, we have chosen to move to another ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
Our consortium [...] ) is considering implementing a discovery layer, but it is not up to me to decide. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] does an excellent job playing "middleman" with our ILS. Thrilled to be part of the group. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
My main concern with III is that it seems unable to keep up with - and sometimes even understand - the needs of the academic market. While there is work going on with Inspire and focus is starting to extend to e-resource management, I feel that the company has a big learning curve and I don't know that that it has the agreements in place with e-resource publishers/aggregators to achieve the functionality they envision. The perception is that other companies targeting primarily the academic segment that started on this path earlier are improving their products faster and more comprehensively across functional areas, and III is falling further behind. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
While we're satisfied for the most part with our III system (tech support is very responsive, much more so than in past years), it's awfully expensive and the company seems to have turned most of their attention to academic library needs. Many of their products are legacy and they don't update them (mobile catalog, e-commerce, etc.). We're happy with the MyLibrary app, but that, too needs some updates (allowing fines payment, for example). We could migrate to Bilbionix/Apollo (much, much cheaper) and then be able to afford something like Bibliocommons on top of it for the price we pay for Sierra/Encore. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are such a small library with limited funds, staffing, and use of our ILS, yet we pay a large amount of money to operate Sierra ILS via our consortium. We actually considered a simple "out of the box' solution with no bells and whistles but are scared of losing our consortium tech support if we stray from Sierra. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Still struggling to get III to understand multi-type consortia. Would switch to Primo in a heartbeat but they still pretty much don't seem to want to do anything with schools or public libraries in a multi-type environment. Kinda stuck between a hard place and a hard place. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We don't administer the contract (made at the consortium level) but discover interface never implemented, which we were expecting as a member at least. While support generally goes through consortium, I was given option to contact them directly but III has not been at all responsive to my requests (regarding important receipt printer functionality at the circulation desks) (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Because this library belongs to a consortium ([...]), we all have the same ILS. As a whole, we are not particularly satisfied with the product, and may consider another vendor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We transitioned to III Sierra in 2018 from OCLC WMS. Our data was bad coming out of OCLC so we are having cleanup issues in Sierra. Our support from our current vendors is lacking. Customer support with Innovative is at an all time low. It is getting better but if I knew that it was this bad I would have advocated strongly not to migrate back. Our discovery layer, EDS, is okay but the support is also not very good. Continued delays on support issues for both vendors. At this point I am not sure who my sales rep is for Innovative if that tells you how bad things are. I used to be on first name basis with my sales reps. We are considering moving to Folio after our 5 year contract with Innovative is up. We keep getting information from EBSCO about Folio but I thought it was open source? I guess this is a quasi open source when you have vendor support through EBSCO. My current lack of support with EDS would lead me to advocate moving to Folio until it has been tested for a few years at least after it is live. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
1,391,502 (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We have 127,214 physical items, excludes all the e-stuff (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We interested in Innovative's initiative with BIBFRAME / linked data in Inspire but more interested in the backend / staff client then in the discovery layer at this point. I would be curious if other vendors such as Ex Libria have a linked data initiative underway. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Locally there are more IHLs migrating to Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Hi Marshall, [...] is currently on Sierra but will be moving to WMS in June 2020. The question regarding the most recent ILS implementation is in reference to our migration to Sierra as the WMS implementation is only halfway through. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
N.A. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
When you ask "number of items in the library's collection" I am not sure if you mean physical, or all (digital + physical) We have 86,207 physical copies in the collection. We have over 190,000 physical and digital copies in the collection. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I think Innovative has REALLY tried hard to restructure their customer service team. They assigned us a new representative that is way more attentive--we didn't even know we had one prior to him. I have encouraged them to move to a new model of training--rather than forcing libraries to hire a team to put on a one-off webex or instruction session, they should provide on-demand webinars, recorded tutorials, more understandable, accessible written instructions. I have suggested to my rep that training videos like EBSCO or Springshare provide are the way of the future. This is really one of our main complaints with them--having to request assistance rather than being empowered to learn it and fix it ourselves. We dropped Encore this year because we had so little control over the platform. The Administrative System is archaic and ridiculous, and they are so reluctant to help you learn how to use it--it is pretty useless. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
In Aug. 2018, our library migrated from Millineum to Sierra with the promise of SSO. However, after a year and paying Innovative, they were unable to make SSO live. The lack of transparency and communication from Innovative has been frustrating. When we open tickets, Innovative responds a week later. We would like to see Innovative, more responsive to customer needs. Sierra is geared towards a print collection. For the future, we hope Innovative changes their interface, so it's focused more on electronic resource management. (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Many of the internal process we use now requires outside automation in the form of scripts. This includes more robust seperate third party SQL programs for stats and acquisitions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Cleveland Institute of Music shares its ILS (and associated costs) with Case Western Reserve University, and 6-8 University Circle libraries, meaning we don't negotiate directly with Innovative. This also means we share access to the collection, and extricating ourselves by moving to a new ILS or other system would be difficult. (Library type: Music; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Sierra has been increasing prices and not delivering the services we would like to see. We underwent a search for new ILS systems this year and the committee chose to recommend CarlX. The system has almost everything we want with the option to work with the company to create things we want but are not currently provided. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
Migrated from Millennium to Sierra on November 11, 2019. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
I am eager to find what solutions the Folio team brings forth. Our Sierra ILS is not very adaptable in scale to diminishing workflows in many areas, and so, we end up paying for a premium ILS, when we do not need a premium ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Our Consortium [...] provides outstanding customer service but I have no idea what their experience is with Innovative. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The ILS does what we need it to but I would like to see better/faster development of the product. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We're pretty satisfied overall with III. They have very good technical and customer support in our experience. However, we are huge fans of EBSCO and our just beginning to consider Folio, though we know little about it at this time. In addition, we just found out as of today that Ex Libris (as we are former customers) has bought III, so this will obviously influence our thinking in a big way. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Main pain points are (1) the process of loading serials coverage data from Serials Solutions into the Sierra ERM. It's asynchronous and the process requires too much fooling around with the file and data formats (2) the time lag between sending updated bibliographic records to Summon and Summon's re-indexing process. Our Sierra catalogue is always out of synch with Summon These pain points obviously drive us in the direction of Alma, for lack of another alternative. III have been working on their version for years and a release date is not even estimated. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
La manutenzione ed il supporto sono un po' costosi (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
In [...] , we have had discussions whether to get one library system for all libraries but so far we are still in the phase of discussions, analyzing library services, etc. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Sierra's pricing model is unsustainable for us. They charge for functionality that other vendors include when they develop a product and continue charging a "subscription fee" every year in addition to a large "implementation fee." We are very close to signing a contract with another vendor and will be migrating in 2020. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
Holdings number from IPEDs reporting 2019. The pending acquisition of III by Ex Libris is something that will have an impact on us both as a single institution and as a consortium member. We have already been in some discussions within the consortium about ILS futures and so will quite likely be exploring this question. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are waiting to see what changes the acquisition of Innovative by ProQuest will bring. We may be scrambling to change Discovery vendors at the beginning of the year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Outcome of the new PQ/EL acquisition of III will be a major factor in future plans. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
After recent acquisition of III by Ex Libris, we have concerns about the future of Sierra. We continue to be frustrated and disappointed by the limited options, bad service, and outdated software that is Sierra. Several features within Sierra are no more developed today than they were 20 years ago. Functions still in character-based software only and should be updated into Sierra by now. Loading of records is still a decade behind where it should be and that is being generous. Concerned about the limited options for an ILS for a large, academic library like ourselves. OPAC/WebPac is slow, outdated, has bugs, and in general is so bad as to be unusable as our main tool for discovery of library materials. Discovery options from III are horrendous, non-functional, and bug-laden in our consortial environment. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)
Innovative Interfaces recently purchase by ProQuest/ExLibris (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our contract with our current ILS system is up for renewal in 1-2 years. Within the last couple of weeks we were informed that Innovative Interfaces was purchased by Ex Libris. We had been considering another ILS because Innovative has not been particularly responsive to our questions and concerns, and now that the company was recently bought out, we are unsure whether Ex Libris will continue upgrading and/or hosting this product. As for two systems we are looking at. The OCLC Wise product has, at this time, no library in the U.S. that uses it, though several systems are interested. The Evergreen product is a possibility. Evergreen is Open Source. I am not sure if OCLC Wise is an open source product or not, (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Extra modules rounding out the overall offering are available, but we cannot afford them, and the basic modules we rely on have proven to be less stable than we would like. (Library type: State; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Since October 2019, we were assigned a support contact and our tickets are being resolved on a regular basis. This is an improvement over the level of support we had for the first 10 months of the year. We are definitely concerned about the Innovative acquisition by ProQuest / Ex Libris. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our current ILS (Sierra) has more options than we need. We are most concerned with cost. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We receive our ILS customer support from our consortium, not from the vendor. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our ILS has been shared with the city public library since 1992. That partnership drives a lot of our planning. Some modules are separate and others, e.g., circulation, are combined. Innovative offered us a three-year contract to upgrade to Sierra and the city agreed to a new payment agreement that splits costs equally. It was the only proposal we could afford given recent deep budget cuts. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Feel that perhaps current LMS not fit for size and geographic spread of consortium. Would prefer a LMS with web client rather than desk installed client. Some functionality only filtering in towards end of life. Not great at integrating digital resources. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Estamos cintemplando migrar porque la mantención nos está resultando demasiado costosa y no nos permite crecer en servicios. Adicinalmente, el servicio postventa es muy malo para noosotros. sólo se han contactado con nosotros cuando informamos que pensábamos migrar. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We are part of a consortium, [...], so any decisions about which ILS we use is based on what the entirety of [...] does. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are waiting to see what happens with III in light of its recent acquisition by Ex Libris. Budget and staffing constraints mean we are always watching what the vendors are developing. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Innovative appears to be moving in the right direction with its development of Inspire Discovery but it remains to be seen if it can compete with Ex Libris Alma. It will be interesting to see what impact the Ex Libris acquisition of Innovative will have on the development of Inspire. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
we are at a crossroads for the ILS (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Since Innovative has been acquired by yet another digital resource I am unwilling to trust that the transition will be smoothe or that the end user will benefit. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Innovative has recently been purchased by Ex Libris so we are interested in any changes (improvements?) that may result from this transaction. Especially since we have found customer service from ExLibris to be lacking. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Hope Innovative gets their act together now that they've been bought out. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
OCLC has made progress in the state of [...] - many academics are fleeing Innovative for them. We're hoping it will streamline workflows and provide a more neutral discovery layer (we're not currently using one). Innovative's customer service has been ok, but they didn't listen to us when we were screaming for shared contracts with our local consortia. We're hopeful OCLC might listen better once others decide to switch. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Will be interested to see what happens to III now that it has been acquired. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
It's no surprise that Innovative has been bought by Ex Libris - I only hope that their customer service improves with this change, though we will be moving to Alma/Primo soon and I look forward to that IMMENSELY. While I realize no system is perfect, I am glad to be going to a system that I've used in the past and from my experiences is better than what we currently have (Sierra). (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)
We have been very disappointed at the recent news about the acquisition of III by Ex Libris as we feel this greatly reduces competition in the market, particularly in the ANZ region. Several years ago we deliberately decided to upgrade from Millennium and move to the cloud with Sierra as a holding position in the hope that the market may improve; this now seems less likely than ever. While we are interested in FOLIO it is unlikely that we would go this route on our own and there is currently little interest in consortial approaches since most organisations have already migrated to Alma and are now captive customers of Ex Libris. We are not opposed to continuing with a hybrid architecture composed of products from different vendors but this is making less financial and architectural sense as integration and cybersecurity requirements increase. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Cost is making the ILS unaffordable. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Changes to Encore in relation to SSO Shibboleth has really impacted on us and III did not have a Customer Focus with this change. Support is currently the worst we have ever experienced and this is the key push to use to look at replacing our ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 1)
No system is perfect! (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are part of [...] and have little input into these decisions (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
My library is part of a cooperative, Public LIbraries in [...], so I am not really the one to answer these questions. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Many of our responses are low due to the deployment configuration, processes and policies put in place by our cooperative. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
The product is still very good. The support is good, but it would be better if we could have more opportunity for phone conversations. I really like the 24/7/365 support. We have had to use it on holidays. When there are bigger problems, they are very responsive. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Last year we were in a pretty dark place with Sierra and Innovative Interfaces. We spent several hundred man hours chasing our tales over the course of a year trying to get a fix that was as simple as replacing some hardware. This year is a 180 degree turn around. The changes implemented by Sierra for Tech Support may not yet be perfect, but they are MUCH better at following up, escalating, and resolving issues. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We've found that we put in fewer trouble tickets every year, as Sierra just isn't as buggy now that it's a mature platform. Most tickets are resolved quickly and adequately though occasionally we still get a ticket that's ignored or poorly addressed. It does seem like the techs on their help desk who aren't very helpful don't last, which is good. The last releases of Sierra (since 3.2) have been adding so many features, it's actually challenging to keep up staff training on these, and to realize when we've actually gotten a feature we wanted. We have one consortium member who wants open source ILS (which would require a new discovery layer) but they haven't convinced any of the other members that it's worth the expense and effort of migrating, especially as Sierra is working pretty well right now. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
As part of a consortium, I depend on our collective to come to good decisions regarding our automation products. Over all, we're happy with what we have and it's a vast improvement over previous products. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Items in collection includes print, media and electronic. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
All our dealings with Innovative go through our consortial membership, [...] . This consortial relationship has been wonderful, in that I dont have to take the time and effort to deal directly with Innovative. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
the library system takes care of all support for the ILS system and we decide as a consortium on replacing systems. the answers provided are guesses on support. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
As a specialized/branch library we can offer input, but the main library and other specialized libraries in the system must agree. We all agree the III leaves much to be desired, but it is a collective decision and the acquisitions departments seem to hold the most weight in decision making. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
I rated Customer Support at 5 because they have not gotten better or worse in the past year. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Innovative Sierra has never been worth what we paid for it--it is just Millennium with a facelift. We were fooled into thinking III was going to get rid of Millennium and we have paid millions for nothing. Sierra does not offer a mobile responsive webpac unless you pay thousands of dollars extra for Airpac. III abandoned development of mobile responsiveness in Sierra to work on Polaris (this was AFTER we were promised mobile responsiveness in a bundle we purchased) but we were locked into a mult-imillion dollar contract and could not afford Polaris even if we'd had the opportunity to switch. Much of the Sierra documentation is outdated and we have to figure things out ourselves with the help of the listserv. Now III had to be bailed out by ExLibris which is proof that they were never a topnotch ILS provider to begin with--but they have certainly charged us premium prices. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Sierra is oftentimes slow and unresponsive during peak library hours which is frustrating for staff who are trying to be efficient and quickly assist patrons waiting in queue for library services at the circulation desk. The issue mainly happens when searching for a record or patron record in the "browse" portal of the "Check-In" terminal. If this could be resolved it would be most helpful. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Innovative has be great to work with but Sierra leaves a lot to be desired. Much of the customization is painfully difficult to implement let alone even be available to do. They have trouble providing direct information about the system usually found within their Knowledgebase "manual". Most information about basic working or set up can be found, however much of how it works and even some defining facts are missing from the articles, instead giving just a vague summary of the item in question. A major redeeming quality of innovative is it's commitment to support for the client and the customer. Trainings and presence from innovative consulting is second to none. I've never felt more catered to as a trainee when in attendance to their webinars and on site trainings. They really provide a solid ground base for their suite of studies focused on their product. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Sierra has been very slow response times in 2019 & 2020. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
We are concerned about what direction III ill go now that ProQuest owns them. We're glad that they are owned by a library company now, but worried that the service may get worse. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
Innovative has been on shaky ground for a couple of years. It will be interesting to see where ExLibras takes it. We are following FOLIO very closely and with high hopes (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
I find it very discouraging that although OPACs were introduced very early in the online content timeline, they haven't improved nearly as much as they should have over all these years. We're seeing sites like Google and Amazon far outstrip the searching capabilities of the average library OPAC. I have to explain over and over to library users that an author search must be last name first; that the back button can't be used, contrary to all expectation; that subject headings don't work like keywords. We need online catalog searches to function more as Google/Amazon searches do: forgiving of spelling errors and word placement, able to extrapolate from search terms entered to other possibilities that the catalog user might have been looking for, functional with the typical use of buttons on an average keyboard. For decades library catalogers followed intricate rules to classify library materials and make them as easy to find as possible - but in the online world, it's much harder than it should be, even after all this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The fundamental problem is that the LMS, and most LMS, are old systems and not really fit-for-purpose in a cloud-based mobile-first world. We need to provide our patrons and our staff with an experience of the standard they are used to when using modern hardware and applications, on their smartphones, tablets, etc. Our current system falls well short of that standard and I'm not sure if any system is there yet. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
Our big problem is that there is no proper batch processing when migrating files (Library type: Music; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Please, change the name of the library. Now the name is [...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Once they have you, you have no choice but to take what they give you because the costs of migrating are too steep. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Most of the questions do not pertain to me. The [...] entered into the contract and I don't have first hand knowledge about how helpful the support is and if the system was implemented on time. Some talk of Discovery , no talk about open source. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Ex Libris purchased Innovative this year. It is uncertain if Sierra will be supported in the future or if our libraries will have to migrate. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Ex Libris purchased III and therefore it is uncertain about the longevity for Sierra. (Library type: Law; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Recently purchased a module to assist with "Library of Things" -- not yet implemented. If this does work well, will be a huge benefit. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Apart from the first 4 questions, the answers to all the others are 'Don't know'. [...] branch libraries do not deal directly with our LMS supplier - everything is done through library staff responsible for that section. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Would like to consider Folio, but development appears to be too slow. Koha looks like a good low cost option, but Alma currently seems to have the most to offer for academic libraries. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)
Sierra is outdated but we don't like Ex Libris' walled-garden approach and aren't keen on their strategy of becoming a broader university service provider (because it would make the ILS a subordinate part of a package largely outside the library's control). Previously we wouldn't have considered an open-source system but will be looking seriously at Folio, especially now III has been taken over by Ex Libris. The consolidation of the ILS market is worrying. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)
Leadership within this company has been lacking for some years now and sadly, it is the product, and the customers who have suffered. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
We have recently (as in the last 2 years) moved to Sierra from Millennium which has put the LMS into the cloud. Sierra is such an improvement on MIllennium it is impossible to be totally objective about the system. I have to say the implementation went about as smooth as it possibly could so I was very impressed by that. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Library is part of a consortium which evaluates and determines ILS products. All ILS vendors have strengths and weaknesses - it's a matter of determining which fits your consortium/library needs best at the time. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our library finds Sierra takes a long time to load and login in the morning. We have had to ask users to log off the public computers so Sierra can load. We also have difficulty with the system "hanging" in between functions. Sierra will shut down if it remains idle for too long. Sierra's response time is very slow. There are reports that can be downloaded from the system as a pdf file but we would prefer them to be an Excel file so we can filter the information we want to access. The search function is cumbersome, you have to know exactly how a title was entered. The AI search algorithm and Expert System leave little to no room for ambiguity. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Sierra has been good for us, but it is very expensive. Customer support is not great and training very expensive. Looking forward to seeing the first roll-outs of Folio. We have signed a 3 year contract with ExLibris/Innovative to give us time to clean up our catalog to transition to a new system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Innovative has had customer service issues for a while now. I appreciate the effort they have made to improve the response and quality of service. It was unfortunate that many people with deep institutional and product knowledge were lost over the years to cost cutting. Some of the people who were newly hired a few years ago have really grown into good product support staff. I no longer fear getting support from outside the main office. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are currently in the process of migrating to from Sierra to Atriuum (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)
We had Sierra for number of years but we are not benefiting from its fuller functionalities such as absence of reporting module poses challenges in obtaining complex data. Annual support contract cost is too high and we can achieve far more better functionalities from the competitors’ products in less price. Innovative needs to review its rigid pricing strategy. Academic sector libraries may consider switching from Innovative. It’s long-promised discovery is launched but its possible merger with ExLibris in early 2020 has raised eye-brows among the libraries, thinking to migrate. Monopolies have their own dynamics and sometimes these doesn’t serve the interests of the customers. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Two-three years ago Innovative's support was downright horrible with unanswered requests and service commitments unmet. The past 18 months has been a complete change. Requests are answered promptly and meaningful explanations are provided for my questions. Really wish they would update their WebPacPro product. We don't anticipate going to an article level discovery layer, so we're stuck with the outdated looking and functioning WebPacPro. The code behind it is an accessibility nightmare. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We recently completed a migration from Millennium to Sierra as of November 2019. Notable improvements were immediately realized. Easy migration for staff was also noted and appreciated. Vendor was very attentive during the migration process. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Overall, the installation was a little rocky, the staff is not happy with frequent slowdowns, trying to create lists in this system is an absolute headache and that is a real problem. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
The merger of III and Exlibris has raised questions about the future of Sierra. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Given that Innovative has just been acquired by Ex Libris (a ProQuest company) it wil be intersting to see what changes if any occur in product development, service and support, and strategic direction in 2020 and beyond (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I actually don't know if the system was on schedule and according to contract, as it predated me by many years. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
It seems promising that ProQuest has brought Innovative Interfaces into its fold of products. "Young" Sierra libraries like us expect ProQuest will continue to support AND develop Sierra for several more years. Also, it would be very smart for ProQuest to rejuvenate III's WebBridge openURL / pathfinder product, an incredibly powerful and satisfying tool helping librarians improve and quality-control full text linking. ( I suggest they get the retired guru B. Duncan to lead it! ) (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
With the recent purchase of Innovative by ProQuest, we are starting to prepare for assessing other options. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)
We are a little bit concerned because of Innovative acquisition by ExLibris. It is hard to preview which impact will it have on Innovative's products, services and finally on customers like us. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Innovative Interfaces, Inc. has been slow to develop and roll out its updated Library Services Platform (Inspire), and Sierra has proven repeatedly frustrating to our efforts to modernize our services and workflows in ERM, acquisitions, and circulation. In concert with ever-ballooning licensing and support costs, Sierra just isn't providing the value we need and expect from our Library Services Platform. We will be moving to FOLIO in Summer of 2020, working with EBSCO as our hosting and managed support vendor. We're excited about this transition, and thrilled to be part of such a dynamic open source community in FOLIO and the OLF. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)
There are only a few ILS systems available for a small institute like ourselves and HE systems such as discovery systems are not suitable for our needs. We find that the system is probably better for library staff than users as the search interface is clunky and not mobile/app friendly. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Very responsive customer service and technical team who consider the needs and interests of their clients. Soutron staff listen carefully to client feedback, and carefully consider it in their product. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Currently used computer programs have fulfilled their tasks. I hope with new, intelligent solutions. The formal description in libraries, costing huge amounts of money, exceeded the most irrational standards. It should be performed by publishers according to universal rules. Where are mankind's dreams of standardization! (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I'm not convinced there is any perfect LMS but Spydus has turned out to be an extremely good choice for us. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Vendor has improved Customer Service in the last 12 months. Account Manager is very responsive to issues. Spydus is a Public Library System so is not meeting all our needs currently. Integration with other products is often manual and needed for full functionality. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Civica has devoted a fair amount to innovation, though some of these are long term prospects. Overall happy with the level of support and new features introduced in major upgrades. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Civica's generally poor standards continue with intermittent problems with data and system failures - they give on-going reassurances that they will "fix" the issues but when one is fixed another appears soon after. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
while the main product has been okay we are having repeated problems with the mobile version we are now on a fourth version and they still have not got the systme to work well. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Very poor training, support not good, no training manual. Group of libraries own network is very good and useful. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
[...] has developed a inhouse middleware that is used to manage Member accounts and connect with various applications. Less than 50$% of our active members borrow physical material. As such the ILS is only one of several tools and applications. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
eBooks are managed by MARC record delivery via OCLC Collection Management rather than SirsiDynix's eRC. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Sirsi/Dynix has been very helpful over the years. They have an active user support group and Client Care responds quickly to update glitches. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Alma/Primo may become an option through the [...] in the next few years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I am frustrated by my vendor who wants to charge us for every new upgrade. Most public libraries have status quo budgets (if they are lucky) and cannot ford the latest bells & whistles. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Our contract for Sirsi Symphony and Enterprise ends at the end of 2020. We are seriously considering other ILS and have been approved to do an RFP. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
as a member of a consortium, GPL doesn't interact directly with the ILS vendor. Presumably it would be consortium staff who could better answer questions about the vendor and the quality of its service. I assume you send a survey to the consortium, to (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The Tech people in the consortium take care of any problems that arise and contact Sirsi. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are in the beginning stages of looking at the LSP landscape. While we are interested in FOLIO, we realize it may be some time before it is ready. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
While the company's vision is focused on the development of BLUECloud products, I am very pleased to see the continued development of the legacy Symphony ILS. It's nice to see the growth of Symphony while a fully functional BLUECloud ILS is developed. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We just moved to SAAS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
The primary reason for the low rating is the extremely sluggish development cycle of their products, in particular their recent uppgrades to Enterprise to be mobile friend;y (not actually responive) taking over 4 years to complete. Their development of their BlueCloud Suite is still in open development, and has not reached the capacity to replace their older machine installed software. I don't see this happening in my lifetime. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
As a small library, we are concerned about the real value and cost for discovery services. It is an expensive service and we can't really measure the true value because vendors won't cooperate with each other. Not every digital item can truly be discovered in our resources. They like the convenience but there are issues. Problems: 1) parameter defaults can be set too broadly finding resources not actually owned or accessed through our library. 2) Students aren't paying attention to where the item is coming from. They need to slow down and not rush their skimming. 3) Librarians have noticed that result sets from databases differ from results sets by the same database in the Discovery Service. The database results are often better than the Discovery Service. Librarians have no real clue how the algorithms work for the the database or Discovery Service.. 4) When librarians help patrons and perform the same search, neither result for either party is the same. 5) Students will not have a Discovery Service when they graduate. What will they do then? They need to be familiar with databases within their field of study. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
The main problem is a very poor search function for finding out about items that are in stock (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
We love our ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
SaaS since 2013, excellent service, no downtime experienced. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
SirsiDynix is often willing to accommodate our requests for bespoke services, so much so that we often consider SirsiDynix more of a partner than a vendor in projects. Their support and training platforms are among the best I have seen. It's easy to keep track of support requests and trace them to related enhancement requests. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Symphony seems to be years behind it's competitors. It is awkward, lacks features found in other ILSs and its BlueCloud suite isn't very useful to larger library systems. On the plus side the staff are knowledgeable and timely. But that isn't enough to balance out the antiquity of the system. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)
SirsiDynix seem customer-oriented and competent from management on down. We're okay with the current version of the ILS but also hopeful that the next generation version they're working on will be a significant improvement in usability and versatility. We've researched open-source systems and concluded they don't have the features we need, and that there's not sufficient organization for those systems to make ongoing, systematic progress in the way proprietary vendors do. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Workflows/Enterprise enhancements, and BlueCloud apps are built on a series of promises that are always underdeveloped and late.Since the implementation in 2017, not one product has been delivered on time and without bugs. I can't say enough how disappointed I am with the company and its products. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
The slow development of a fully functional BLUECloud client , is frustrating and disappointing. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Our impression of SirsiDynix is they appear to be stalled out on releasing finished modules of their BlueCloud line. They also appear to not have a strategy for integrating developing initiatives like Bibframe into their offerings. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Discovery Solution: Custom Global for everything plus special focus discovery: Avalon (Samvera), for AV; Libra (Samvera Scholarly Communication); Samvera Hyku for Publishing; GeoBlacklight for GIS; ArchiveSpace for manuscripts; Dataverse for research data; ArchiveIT for at risk websites; HathiTrust for monographs; SharedShelf/ArtStor ; DPLA for Digital Virginia; (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Symphony's functionality is in many ways beyond our needs: we're a simple library with a small-ish collection and low circulation. That said, we'd rather have something that exceeds our needs than something that doesn't adequately meet them. SirsiDynix support was very responsive when we had an urgent issue with the ILS this year, diagnosing and resolving the problem quickly. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The library is part of a consortium. Our current contract has 3 1/2 more years. We have many issues with Symphony. We have one person dedicated to handling all ILS issues. She feels that customer support is very good overall, however, she has been given to understand that SirsiDynix is phasing out continued improvements to Symphony and focusing on their Discovery Interface, Enterprise. We are investigating and comparing systems in anticipation of contract renewal in 3 1/2 years. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are not that happy with our current ILS but we have not seen many other options that would justify a migration. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Development at SirsiDinosaurs proceeds at a glacial pace. Following a series of missed release deadlines, they obfuscated these delays with a change in their versioning. They also changed their road map to offer vague timelines without any reference to what will be included in an upcoming release. The WorkFlows client (it's 2019 and most of their customers still have to use a desktop client?!) has not changed much over the past decade. BLUEcloud Circulation and Cataloging are still missing core functionality and have slow performance, rendering them unusable. The company finally released a mobile-friendly Enterprise catalogue this summer (that's not even truly responsive), even though competitors have had this for well over 5 years. New customers should expect the product never to change much and to have to wait at least 5 years to have features that competitors implement. At this point, the product is seriously even lagging behind open source options such as Koha. There are really no good reason to pick them over an open source solution if your library is comfortable with innovation. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 0)
The ILS vendor field is very narrow, so even if we are dissatisfied there are not lot of affordable options. There are not a lot of options that work really well for large multi-type consortia. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
The development of BlueCloud as the replacement for staff access to the LMS is very slow. SirsiDynix need to focus on their main product not trying to branch out into other flashy add-ons. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
While we would prefer not to use open source at this time, we're extremely satisfied with our consortium and the support we get at that level, so probably wouldn't leave the consortium. The number of items in our collection is dramatically increased because I used a different method for counting it, which now includes individual records for shared electronic resources, including ebooks. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Have seen the product improve from year-end to year-end, but within the year is introduce a major problem that took to long to resolve. I am giving them a high score because they eventually resolved the problem (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] is a consortium of local public and private K-12 schools. We provide library automation services to all of our member school districts. We serve approximately 100 locations, 50,000 students and teachers. Our member school districts use us as tier 1 and 2 support for library auotmation. We in turn use [...] as tier 3 support, and INFOhio can escalate issues to SirsiDynix. We are currently using Symphony and WorkFlows while transitioning to BLUEcloud. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)
This system is not have intuitive to [...] patrons or employees. In our experience with customer service, we have had difficulties obtaining knowledgeable service representatives to help meet our needs in a timely manner. We are in the process of looking for a new system to migrate to in 2021. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
En el mes de julio se actualizó la versión del sistema Symphony y actualmente se está trabajando en la interfaz de BlueCloud para todo lo relacionado con Catalogación y Circulación con todas las facilidades que esto ofrece para los usuarios y para el personal en forma ubicua (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Not sure about vendors for new ILS (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
SirsiDynix's customer base is mostly public libraries. Though Academic Reserves module is operational, there are features that would make it more useful. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
SirsiDynix has excellent customer support. Unfortunately, when we were sold our system three years ago, our sales rep promised access to their BLUECloud suite of products at go-live. Those products are still a few years away from being usable in production, and are being developed very slowly. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Symphony seems to be the best product on the market relative to its cost, but it leaves much to be desired, particularly the WorkFlows staff client which remains buggy and obtuse to this day. The company is addressing this by developing the browser based BlueCloud, but it isn't far along enough for implementation by most libraries in our consortium. The eLibrary OPAC is garbage and the newer Enterprise OPAC has a few concerning flaws. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
Support is not great, but could be worse. Seems like the support team at Sirsi Dynix UK are all quite new and there seems to be a lot of misinterpretation that delays solutions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
As a member of a consortium, we don't have much say over implementing fixes or tweaking our discovery products (such as Enterprise). I know that things could work better, but the consortium offices are busy and they are not on the front lines with us, so they don't have much incentive to fix things that bother us. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)
We are a multi-type library consortium using the system. Our Admin is at the State Library. Every time we go out for an RFP there is not another system that can handle the diversity of needs the [...] has. Until something is developed that is as robust as SIRSI we will not be changing. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Library catalogs need to be reinvented. The structure of standard bibliographic records is no longer functional. Usability is primarily about browsing not single item searches. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are mostly satisfied with the product we have. The main issue is that we are unable to upgrade to a better online catalog due to cost. The company discontinued developing the catalog that would have been covered under the cost of our maintenance fee. This would have provided a more up-to-date online catalog for our library. The software fits our workflow fairly well. There are some modifications that we would like to do, but it would cost to have the company implement/make the changes needed. Overall we are able to make things work, the software is pretty customizable in relation to properties, reports, etc. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are part of the [...] and share our ILS & Discovery Service with 4 other libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
At some point in the next version of the survey, the term ILS might need to be replaced with a library services platform. The SirsiDynix software now has a large component of its services residing in BLUEcloud. For example, the BLUEcloud eResource Central is completely independent of the Symphony ILS. Over the next year, the BLUEcloud Circulation, Cataloging, and Acquisitions may be adopted by our library consortium once the functionality reaches the critical areas to allow us to leave the Java WorkFlows client used for Symphony. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our state academic library consortium, [...] , put out a request for information a couple of years ago when our SIRSI contract was nearing an end. We did review the current ILS products available from other vendors (in person demos), but chose to stay with SIRSI for a five year contract due to few added benefits to migrating to other vendors vs. the hassle and major undertaking of migrating to another vendor. Right now, SIRSI and its BlueCloud/Symphony products work for us. As a consortium, we moved to the cloud version instead of running local servers a few years ago. Without the [...] consortium, I don't know what we would use as our ILS. [...] makes it easy for us as a small library to have a lot of products and services. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We're mostly satisfied with SirsiDynix. I've been pretty happy with Enterprise as a catalog system. It's way more flexible than E-library or EDS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Sirsi is very slow to change and does not keep up with current technology expectations or trends for both staff and public facing products. Getting reports and data is unnecessarily cumbersome. When we're competing with Amazon for front-end search, our sites need to be much more nimble and adaptable. Some reports we run are not as customizable as I'd like. I use the List Purchase Alerts New report weekly. It would be a more efficient use of my time if I could have the suspended holds not counted in the report and all items with no current copies (but copies on order) not appear on the report. It would also be beneficial if the DVDs could have a separate report. Integration of ebook and eaudio records is not complete. [The customer services consultant] has been responsive to issues raised [and] actively works to iron out issues. Libraries must have the staffing capacity and knowledge base to develop and maintain an open source ILS customized to suit their needs. If the staffing is not available, funds must be found to hire consultants or vendors to develop, migrate, and launch the open source ILS. It is even more important to make sure there are staff/vendors available to update, maintain, and improve this customized system on a regular basis so Librarians and customer's requirements and requests are evaluated and completed. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are not using the online (cloud) system, but an older version that is runs on a server. I have used several different ILS systems, and Sirsi is the least user-friendly and clunky of the lot. The report function is terrible unless you pay for the additional application. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
Excellent customer support in APAC region. Migrated to a hosted solution in May 2019, extremely happy with project and results of migration. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
The [...] Libraries is currently migrating to Ex Libris' Alma, Primo and Leganto products. Our expected Go Live date is at the beginning of August 2020. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
It takes a lot of lobbying before basic improvements/enhancements are implemented. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
As the ILS Administrator, I'm very satisfied with Symphony. Some points were docked for the fact that there are some libraries in the consortium that are not happy with it. Particularly the e-Library catalog interface (we also demoed Enterprise and they hated that too. Currently, we are looking at BiblioCore for a catalog replacement). However, overall, they are happy with the functionality of the system's backend. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
[...] physical library collection was decommissioned in 2016/2017 and this means that the current ILS is largely superfluous to our needs (the answers above reflect this). It is unlikely that we will seek an alternative ILS when the SirsiDynix service contract expires in 2020. We are however looking into an alternative means of hosting our corporate memory archive - this will likely involve a combination of SharePoint Online and our existing EDRMS - Micro Focus Content Manager. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
The library has just signed a new contract with SirsiDynix after a tender process. SirsiDynix were able to meet the needs of the consortia better than the other tenders. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Symphony Workflows is not aesthetically pleasing. It looks a bit dated. When you do searches inside of Workflows often times it does not show digital materials if you get them via a 3rd party such as Hoopla or Overdrive. The result of this is that circulation staff must have an Internet Browser open with the Enterprise website to search for those materials. Also, there are issues when searching for materials inside of Workflows. You have to be very specific about word choice and the order in which you enter terms to search. It is not very flexible, and does not handle error correction. You must be precise. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Searching could be better, but I've read the SirsiDynix product roadmap and it is something they are actively working on. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
I wish Workflows search had more granularity. Searching for Stephen King's It is almost impossible. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Workflows is missing a tool. Sometimes older people checkout over 100 books a month. They read so many books that it is difficult for them to keep track whether they have read a specific book but there is no tool for this. We've put in a request for this type of tool before. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Holds, they can be very convoluted. This is a task that happens multiple times per day, and you would think there would be a really easy tool for searching, trapping, and identifying an item as missing, but it is not so great at this. Overall Workflows is a good product from a good company and I like it. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Maybe the cataloging could be better within the system. Often times we physically have an item in our hands, and we cannot find it in Workflows. This causes all of our work to slow down, because you are trying to figure out how to find it. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I feel like you have to use the Enterprise website and Workflows in conjunction just to be able to do your job. Workflows doesn't show ebooks that we get from 3rd party services. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Workflows has some odd quirks. You have to use one tool to search for a patron. Then exit out of that you need to use another tool to actually open the patron account and modify their address or email or PIN. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Electronic resources left blank, because they are not managed in the ILS. Memory about implementation of our current ILS is fuzzy, because it was so long ago. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Note Year circulation 354. Number of Students enrolled 49 (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
The customer support, consulting services and related teams at SirsiDynix are absolutely the best to work with. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
our main frustration revolves around slow deployment of bluecloud products. We have a few of the products in use but many do not have all of the functions needed. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Symphony is a mature ILS that suits our needs. EDS has been functioning well with the exception that ProQuest products are not well incorporated. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We'd like to migrate to a new LSP, but funding won't be available for at least 3 years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Vendor has been slow in developing a browser-based interface for staff use which is feature-equivalent with the existing installed client software. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Would like to see [...] take initiative regarding open source implementation to help libraries that are unable to do it themselves, or offer state operated system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The current Enterprise interface does not replicate the functionality of its previous elibrary online catalog. SIRSI is adding boolean and shelf browsing features to Enterprise that will improve some of the search issues users experience when searching for physical items in our library. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Individual libraries are not subject to direct contact with the vendor (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are currently on Symphony and the product is simply old technology. While BlueCloud has come a long way, it still has a long, long way to come before it can be used. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)
As a member of a consortia, I don't really feel qualified to answer some of the questions. Just going by how I feel the consortia leader feels about the company. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have just completed a lengthy process of evaluating automation systems and chose to sign a new contract with Sirsi that includes improvements and features developed since we signed our contract with them in 2011. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
ILS systems lag far behind products that are available to other industries, such as the medical and restaurant industries. I go to a restaurant and see the waitress or waiter enter my order and it is transmitted to the kitchen. This is via a touch screen and is very quick and appears intuitive. My doctor’s office can write a prescription and transmit it to my preferred pharmacy while I am sitting in the office. ILS systems lack this level of sophistication. Some of this is due to the library field. We insist on cataloging the city of publication but the series and the number in the series are data that must be added or not added depending on the library, cataloger, or consortium. Historically the city of publication was important but today multinational companies buy and sell imprints and publishers often so the city of publication isn’t relevant. We have also allowed the Library of Congress hegemony over our subject headings and proprietary library classification systems. The Library of Congress is an agency of the legislative branch of the U.S. government, yet they control whether a person in the country, who has not entered through legal means, is an undocumented worker or an illegal alien in our subject headings. ILS systems can only reflect the information that libraries have or request. The consolidation of the industry is a concern because we are losing competition and innovation with these acquisitions. ILS systems are technology companies competing with Google, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft for talent. Since there are six times more restaurants in the county than libraries we are a smaller market and are therefore relegated to less up to date systems. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Very happy with our move to a managed service - we seem to be getting good support from them. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
WF is very robust with many features however it is cumbersome to use. This product can improve in usability for staff as well as updated discovery layers. Our consortium contact is excellent and has helped us to navigate and make the most of this product. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Sirsi is stuck. BlueCloud products are unusable in a consortium. Things that were first shown and promised in 2013 still aren't usable. We are paying a lot for development that never seems to get anywhere. There are a lot of individual Sirsi employees who are hugely helpful, honest and that we are very attached to. But the lack of development, focus on buzzwords rather than product and decreasing help from their help desk have driven us to look elsewhere. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)
Night and day difference in customer support compared to previous vendor. Interface too cumbersome and the web-based tools lag, but happy we made the switch. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have 2 proprietary systems; one, we have had since the beginning of time and the other, is more recent to handle electronic resources. Our issue is we lack the man power to capitalize and utilize all the features due to the difficulty in making two different systems integrate successfully. (Library type: Special; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are happy to leave most of the work of maintaining our ILS to [...] , which manages our consortium. It means we do have relatively little choice in what ILS is used, but it is well worth giving up a little autonomy not to have to deal with it ourselves. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Huge advantage and cost savings being part of the [...] consortium (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
While there are always things that could be better, I am pretty happy with the functionality of our ILS, and the support provided by the vendor. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
The Symphony ILS is adequate for a large urban public libraries print materials. The vendor needs to get their BlueCloud offerings stable and get legacy systems switched on to it because the workflows client is really starting to show its age as front line service tool. The web services need more robust documentation so that systems can be integrated more easily, it appears there are reasonable read capabilities but it is unclear why this isn't adopted by more 3rd party content vendors for authentication, and SIP2 and Ezproxy solutions are still favored. The SirsDynix support portal works well for the most part and support staff have been good when they are needed. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We've had a couple of fee discrepancies; the latest being ironed out now. A change was made to one of our categories by one of their techs without my approval that caused an entire type of material to stop checking out properly. That was frustrating (I got blamed for it). Overall, the products are far superior to what we used to use, and so is the support. We still feel that Innovative products have little to offer public libraries and are (overall) pleased with SirsiDynix. Costs are always a concern, however, and so we're considering open source again when our contract expires. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are disappointed that the products that we were excited about, and that they sold us on - BlueCloud Circulation, and BlueCloud Cataloging - are not further along in production than they are today. It's been years and they still don't have some basic circulation functionality in place. They have too many products to support, and apparently are having to divert resources to develop new products to sell. Symphony Cataloging has much less functionality than our old ILS. We have to rely on MarcEdit to process most of our updates. Symphony standard reports are clunky and inadequate. Reports that should be standard have to be paid for separately. We are lucky to have BlueCloud Analytics at our library, or analyzing our operations & usage would be impossible. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
SIGB requiere de mucho conocimiento y experiencia para realizar una correcta configuración y administración; por lo tanto el criterio de usabilidad o relacionado es bajo. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
collection= print + ebooks (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The current system is not forward thinking. The library cannot catalog non-Romanized languages. Not seeing great functionality and BlueCloud is still in the works. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
[...] >>How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? Cannot answer this as we are dependent on the support staff employed by the [...] consortium to handle any support issues to do with the LMS. We are not satisfied with the functionality of Symphony/Workflows in our consortial environment and as the number of libraries joining the [...] consortium grows, we have concern about their resources to support these libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We recently discussed requesting information from other ILS vendors. When discussed with SirsiDynix they agreed to meet a number of our requirements and offered a good deal on a contract extension for three additional years (which we can void if they don't meet the requirements we agreed to). A big issue is the tendency of SirsiDynix to over-promise and under-deliver and their inability to meet release dates. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our current vendor has a good, stable product that is responsive to our requests and awesome people. That puts them over the top for us. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Wish soon its BlueCloud package get ready to meet needs of public libraries, especially Enterprise and eRC, etc. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
While we are not actively considering migrating to another system, the end of the current contract is in a little over a year, so we will be looking at options ranging from full tender to renewing the current system for a few more years. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have found SirsiDynix to be exceptionally responsive to customer input. We are also impressed with the customer collaboration in developing the new BLUEcloud suite of software. Also, we've been very pleased and grateful for the way their capital venturist (ICV) owners have encouraged SirsiDynix to branch out and expand their product line beyond a simple ILS and develop a more robust LSP. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
The Symphony ILS is not truly what is needed in our special library. That being said, we have always had good responses and relationship with SirsiDynix, and have been able to work around the lack of flexibility for our "special" library needs. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
NA should be available for questions that are not applicable to those library's that filter questions through a consortium. The results of the survey are skewed, because I had to assign numerical value to questions I should have no opinion on since the consortium takes care of issues. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The current ILS is desktop based and clunky compared to other products currently available and while the vendor is moving towards providing a web-based product it is hard to say how long it will take for them to complete it and in essence our consortium is functioning as beta testers for them during this process. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
I scored SirsiDynix low in managing our electronic resources because we don't use Sirsi with our electronic ones (with a few individual electronic journal titles). We might consider an Open Source system if one were fully formed and turn key. We looked into Koha many years ago but we're small and without a dedicated IT person it would not work for us. When one is developed that is as robust and functional as what we have we might look at the issue again. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The SirsiDynix Customer Service portal is the best of all vendors we work with. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We would prefer that more development take place within the Symphony Outreach module. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
I am satisfied with support and new product roll-outs. I am disappointed in the way ILS companies have responded to user behavior and technology changes. Certain things should be simple and standard such as account related issues, online payment of various services, non-traditional material management (acquisition, cataloging and circulation), unlimited SMS, linked-in data capability to name just a few. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Public version of the catalog is not very ADA accessible. You have to click on a separate link (like "back door" access) to get to the "accessible" version. The cursor is in the search box, so a screen reader would have to read through the whole page and back up to the top again to even find the link to the accessible version. When you run both versions of the catalog page through an accessibility checker, the accessible version finds more errors than the regular version! Reports and inventory are not accurate. Clunky interface. Awful formatting for reports. The only reason we used this ILS is because it is forced upon us by our consortium. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)
The implementation period was rocky and we are still sorting out issues that arose from the migration. However, those issues are becoming less frequent over time. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are part of a statewide consortium that includes school, public, special, and a few academic libraries. Our needs are varied but the consortium allows the many small libraries in our state access to ILS they otherwise couldn't afford and specialized staff that maintain the ILS. This does give individual libraries less of a say in which company and product we use. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are migrating to Alma/Primo. I answered this survey based on the existing ILS. The number of items in our collection is based on physical items. I have not worked with the support department for SirsiDynix, so I provided neutral feedback, I would rather have selected "N/A" if possible. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)
I am the new Director for the library and moved here from a library that was using a cloud based system. I have found Symphony to be outdated, clunky, hard to learn, hard to maintain, and difficult all around. After numerous times reaching out to customer support for hands on training, it wasn't until I responded negatively to a survey that anyone offered help. Even after I was given assistance, the attitude of the customer service person was one of I should already know how to use it and it's my fault that I do not. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)
We work within the [...] consortium in [...] and have access to 58 community college library collections. If we do not have an item, we can then search and request from one of the other libraries in the system. We also use OCLC databases to find books that are not found in the CCLINC system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
From a customer's perspective, it was another year of growing pains for SirsiDynix. Upgrades and bug fixes for some products seem to take a long time. We're still waiting for one bug fix that was promised a year ago, on a very basic function that patrons expect to work. On the positive side, they are developing some great products and features. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Just interested to see what FOLIO has to offer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
2019 we went back out to tender for the LMS and chose SirsiDynix. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
I answered the survey under [...] . (Library type: Public; collection size: very small)
We use resourcemate so this is na (Library type: Public; collection size: small)
It is almost impossible to get a change or improvement to software. We are a small player (albeit a Consortium of 39 Councils) in [...] and do not have any say in features which will be selected for research and developemnt. We would like the general search improved. Currently it searches 5 fields in the bibliographic record, not all fields as we were led to believe. Frustrating. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
An issue we have is with reports interface and the ability to format them the way we would like. To format them currently you require to use API which as a very small authority is something we don't have the ability to use. the only other option id to purchase the analytics software which is another expense we currently couldn't afford. the only other min issue is that the OPAC (Enterprise) still doesn't seem to be able to adapt fully to accommodate mobile devices and it looks like many library services have to use skilled web developers to develop code as a work around. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
El sistema es muy completo, prácticamente se pueden resolver todos los requerimientos de la biblioteca, sin embargo es muy complejo a la hora de configurar algo, los manuales están algo desactualizados y en varios casos siguiendo los pasos descritos en el manual, no logramos configurar correctamente, afortunadamente el servicio de soporte es muy bueno y permite finalmente resolver los inconvenientes. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have had good success with the Sirsi support portal. Everyone I have worked with works hard to resolve the issue or place it in JIRA. We have been a customer for 16 years. I would like to see some improvements in different aspects of the ILS and those are in the queue for consideration. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Basic module functionality on the back end has been somewhat improved since migration. Expectations of front end discovery layer, integration with EDS and the BLUEcloud campus suite have been disappointing to date. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
The only reason for the decline in customer support is due to the cuts to the [...] . The customer service we receive is very good, just a bit slower than it used to be due to cuts in jobs. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our libraries have been associated with SirsiDynix since 1999. The company has grown larger over time and is offering more products or modules every year. The users conference will be near SirsiDynix headquarters so it will be interesting to visit the home office. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our satisfaction is higher for our ILS (decades old) than for our discovery layer (less than ten years old). EBSCO needs to be more assertive about fixing problems and updating their platform. We have open tickets about basic and fundamental problems that have lingered for years. At this point it is more likely that problems with our discovery service will drive us into Alma's warm embrace, than problems with Symphony, which is old and awkward but gets the job done with a bit of elbow grease. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)
We'd like easier to use reporting and statistic retrieval. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We need more customization of the LMS based upon different needs and future trends. Any requests for custom work are expensive and should be standard based upon a lot of libraries requesting the same thing and the needs of today. Access to APIs are to only supported vendors. Would like to have other systems be able to connect via APIs to the LMS, not just those the vendor allows. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
The product is overall a good ILS - from a personal searching viewpoint the public searching interface (Enterprise) and the way results display could be improved as I think some of the public finding it confusing when looking at search results. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
ILS is functional, but old and could be better. It's good for sharing items with IU Libraries, but lacks integration with resource sharing tools. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
The eRC product is great for managing larger sourced e-resources. We aren't considering Hoopla at least until they can integrate into this platform. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We moved from a stand alone Symphony to a consortium called [...] . They use Enterprise. We are very pleased with the migration and support from [...] in this effort. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
The current ILS is working well. When problems or issues arise, we have someone in-house that troubleshoots them. If they are beyond the reach of this person, we contact the ILS vendor directly, who has addressed the problem(s) quickly and satisfactory. Stating this, however, there is always interest in seeking open source options, specifically if they will secure a larger audience without losing efficiency and within budget constraints. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Cost is a major factor in our decision to consider migrating to another system. SirsiDynix provides lots of functionality but every feature comes at an additional cost. It feels to me as a customer that they are constantly tacking on new functionality to aging architecture with the result that it's increasingly cumbersome. I wonder if a product created for, rather than adapted to, current technology workflows and access would be more flexible and user-friendly. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
SirsiDynix appears to focus more on products that can be sold as additional or upgraded products, rather than fixing functionality in core products. We've been hearing about BlueCloud products for the past 9 - 10 years, but the functionality apparently isn't there to roll out for a large consortium, such as [...]. Open source options seem to more closely align with ethics and philosophy of public libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Symphony is old and clunky, the vendor has been taking years to roll out modern new products. The product was selected in 2015 due to the imminent release of BlueCloud products, which has not happened. The customer service support team are wonderful - always helpful, prompt with their solutions. We receive nearly 24/7 hour service due to the vendor maintaining and overnight tea in the US to service Australasia customers. (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Symphony is a decent product but has limitations in that it is built on 30-yr old technology. it works well for physical books but less so for ebooks. The vendor is attempting to rectify that through it's BLUECloud offerings but there is still some development needed there. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Vendor is quite willing to partner with us on the enhancement of the system. We are often involved in piloting new features to help refine them prior to general release. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
The system lacks discovery layers. It is also old and not very dynamic. Probably, in 2.5 years when the contract is over, we would shift to something else more modern and suitable for the size of our library. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Verso updated to Version 6, October 11th, 2019, and it is a nightmare. WE WERE THE LAST ONES TO BE UPDATED TO IT AND STILL HAS MANY ISSUES. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
We will be moving to Alma/Primo in the upcoming calendar year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
I am a new director and I might just be uneducated with the system but i feel it should be more user friendly. I dont know how to even update it (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
The VERSO catalog has severe deficiencies and problems that have persisted over time even thought the company knows about the problems. They have abandoned universal search syntax structures and ignore problems that defeat discovery. I would never recommend VERSO to a serious academic institution due to its lack of interest in successful discovery. It may be fine for a public library. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
We have a catalog search through Verso, but it's not at all forgiving. Often times we go to Amazon and search when the patrons don't have the author or the title correct. I would think a statewide system that everyone could buy into would be great for communication between libraries and also pooling resources to improve the overall system..."hey company here are 300 Michigan libraries that want this" as opposed to "hey company our little country town library wants this." (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
The customer service and price are great with this product, which is why we have stayed with them as long as we have. Otherwise I don't have many good things to say. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
A-G didn't do a great job with rolling out Verso & SHAREit v6, but I've been impressed with how hard they've worked to fix the problems in the new version. I've never been a computer programmer, but it sometimes seems like the people who designed Verso don't actually use it in a day-to-day type setting. Figuring out how to do things doesn't feel intuitive. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
It works well for our smallish/medium library. A wider variety of type of reports would be nice. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We really like AGent/Verso, but the yearly cost may influence decisions in the future, especially if OpenSource options work well. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are a regional library system, we support the public libraries of our region by working with the ILS on their behalf. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
I am happy for the most part. They have actively worked to improve their product and several months ago they made major upgrades with numerous changes. They are quick to respond to problems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Verso issued a new version last year, and some bugs are still being worked out. While I was preparing for the annual report, I noticed that a very useful report I had run last year was no longer available. I hope the new Verso will have the bugs ironed out soon. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
An "upgrade" was recently launched by Auto-Graphics. There have been numerous issues with it. In using Verso as our web page, my biggest complaint is that none of our pages were rebuilt by the company. We've had to start from scratch while learning their new widget process. Not an upgrade in my opinion. Since the disastrous launch, the company has hired a couple of new managers so one can hope things will improve. In the meanwhile, we are entertaining the idea of a new ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
We're very happy with Auto-Graphics. They hit some bumps implementing v.6 this past year, but worked hard to resolve issues and were responsive to library input. I'd rather deal with growing/advancement pains with a vendor that tries to stay ahead of the curve in terms of web design, functionality, and security than settle for the same system never changing (so no implementation hiccups) until it is so out of date or insecure it becomes inoperable. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Auto-Graphics most recent changes enhanced our ability to provide access to print and digital resources from our landing page. We feel they could further enhance by offering more options inside their widgets, such as font and widget size. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
ILS Virtua is outdated. III no longer develops it (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Virtua has been bought by Innovative. We likely could not afford any of their other products and that is why I stated that we would not likely buy a future system from them. I rated their customer support at 6 because it has been good and has not degraded or improved. They have a great team supporting Virtua users. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Virtua will not be updated anymore and is not offered by VTLS. Furthermore, VTLS is taken over by ExLibris, and we had some horrible experiences with them in the past so they are probably not an option. We are a small library and we do not need a very advanced library system, this limits our search. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Libraries are in an unending race with technological innovations in the spheres of search and information management . In the past libraries had managed to be in the forefront for quite sometime. However, with the advent of the internet and the various web technologies (Google in particular), it seems that libraries have lost the race! I am not pointing to any vendor in particular but I think there is an urgent need to look into the basics of library automation, we need to bring fresh perspectives and new ideas. At least, we need to quickly adapt to the latest technologies to stay relevant. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our current search for a new ILS is the direct result of consolidation in the industry. Once Virtua was bought by Innovative it was clear that it wouldn't be actively developed and over the past few years we've really started to see that play out and felt we had no choice but to move on. The lack of any Web-based functionality hampered outreach efforts in particular. Furthermore, as we just saw when Innovative got bought by Ex Libris, Innovative never settled on a strong direction as a company and went from what appeared to be a plan to migrate all customers to a single solution to treading water with the legacy products it acquired from other companies. So, ultimately, we didn't feel strongly about sticking with Innovative since we never "chose" them anyway. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
Under Innovative, local vendor no longer supporting the RFID hardware and software systems integrated to current ILS. Customer is not being updated in advance, negative financial and operations impact faced, may have to change to a compatible new system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
At present, there is no update version for VIRTUA because VTLS acquired by Innovative interface and III acquired by Ex Libris (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The reason that support for our ILS has gotten worse is that it is no longer in development. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are concerned about the rising cost of Innovative products, and about the recent acquisition of Innovative by ExLibris. We know our ILS Virtua is not going to be a major priority for ExLibris, and we anticipate their plans for the product will be the main factor causing us to migrate to a new system (they will inevitably decide to stop supporting it at some point). We don't believe our budget will allow us to move to that company's other products. We are strongly considering a supported open source solution, like Koha supported by ByWater. We have not done any serious analysis to see what other options might be suitable, but we are preparing for this in the coming 2-5 years. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The company and the product both are becoming less user-friendly than they were initially. The product is lagging behind to cope up with the advancements of Library Technology. It has failed to improe the handling of digital materials in Library collections. We had to look for other company solutions like OCLC for deeloping and publishing the digital collections. This makes us pay for other products like ContentDM as well as integrating the two collections is an issue. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
I think virtua is a reliable system its just the support is pretty bad (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)
We're currently implementing Alma and Primo, and will go live in May 2020. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We're currently expecting to migrate to FOLIO for the fall of 2020 (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
VuFind is the open source public catalog layer that our consortium manages and that we currently use with Voyager. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are quite satisfied with the technical support that ExLibris provides for Voyager, but they are no longer releasing meaningful updates to the product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Ex Libris has been providing very responsive support for Voyager. We are interested in FOLIO due largely to its agile development framework that will adapt to meet our library's needs in the long term. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Ex Libris Voyager has done an outstanding job of supporting physical library circulation / management over the past fifteen years; We need a better solution for electronic resource management. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
The library's needs have moved beyond the last generation of ILS solutions, so we are moving to a new system that has all the functionality we require. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We will be migrating from Voyager to Alma in the summer of 2020. Voyager has served us well for over 20 years, but its feature set has fallen far behind and we can no longer extend its functionality or integrate it with current systems and services that we need. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
While Voyager fulfills our basic cataloging and circulation needs, it has not kept up with the changing nature of library resources, i.e., electronic formats, and is cumbersome to work with. The needs of academic institutions such as ours have vastly changed since its implementation here in 1999, and we feel it's imperative that we migrate to a new system within a year or two. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We presently have good relations with ExLibris. We would like to see how the field of Next Generation ILS's develop before making any move. The acquisition of Innovative by ExLibris may affect our perspective of the vendor and marketplace. The satisfaction we have with the vendor is based in part on the decision to slow the pace of releasing new versions of Voyager. Customer Service is getting better each year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
The [...] issued an request For Information (RFI) for a next generation library services platform and discovery layer in October 2019. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The ratings related to Voyager are done with the recognition that Voyager is a fairly old system. It was not designed for current-state libraries and there are no plans for it to be redesigned. We feel Voyager was an excellent system for many years and its ratings are not the best only because it is dated. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We migrated to OCLC WMS this summer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
[...] is currently in the process of reviewing proposals for a new library services platform and discovery layer. At this stage of the process, potentials vendors are confidential. (Library type: National; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
I cannot comment much on the ILS search process, but Skidmore is working to ensure we choose a system which is right for us even if it means waiting a bit or taking some calculated risks. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Our selection of a new product has not been made public as of this survey submission, but we are on a timeline to implement in 2020. (Library type: Theology; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are currently operating on Voyager and SFX and halfway through our migration to Alma and Primo VE. We should go live on Alma and Primo VE on June 24, 2020. Hence these responses reflect our experience with Voayger during this transition phase and our experience with Ex Libris as a company and provider of both products. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
We have just started the migration process to Alma. The Go-live day will be in July. The [...] Library will be merged with the [...] Library this year. So we are combining our databases during the migration. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Voyager works well with our discovery layer from EBSCO. Our staff understands Voyager's foibles. Our metadata is hosted by Ex Libris. Cloud hosting has proved incredibly reliable since we began using this service. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are part of the [...], which contracted with Ex Libris to migrate to Alma in 2019. However, as our "go-live" with Alma didn't occur until December 2019, I have filled out the survey for our previous system, Voyager. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are in transition from one ILS (Voyager) to another (Alma), so I'm not sure how relevant these survey results are. We are still using Voyager, but are working on getting Alma set up and it will go live and fully replace Voyager in July 2020. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
The library recently licensed Alma and will go live July 2021. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Uncertain support future. Alma does not provide the flexibility in product development we are after. The responsivity and of open source is very appealing to us. (Library type: Special; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
Overall we are happy with our ILS but we would like to move to a more modern system to take advantage of new features. However, we are concerned about how limited the ILS marketplace has become, and how it continues to shrink. We may opt to continue developing local enhancements to defer a migration decision. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We need a cloud-based ILS that is not wholly dependent on PC system requirements and client installations. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The school libraries collection forms part of the collection of the public library in the city of Best. Therefore the cataloge doesn't fulfill the needs of a school library. The public libray is in the process of renewing its library systems and website. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)
The OCLC and Woldshare user community is strong, active, and very useful. That community is a major part of why Worldshare works well as an ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
The main areas that are lacking in WMS are reserves, which is dealt with only in the online catalog, Discovery, and not in the WMS staff interface; and temporary locations, which are not searchable in Discovery. There are also limited options for customizing the Discovery interface. That said, this product has gotten better over the 1.5 years I've been here, with fewer slow times or glitches. Their customer service tends to be very helpful and usually pretty quick. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
System has had a very stable year vs. problems in Fall 2017; they increased the capacity.. Vendor offers frequent updates, many based on customer requests, which has been helpful. Discovery system has had major updates as well, with more in the pipeline. Overall, a very easy to use system, which is also easy to configure. It is also far less expensive to acquire and maintain vs. many of the other ILS systems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We implemented OCLC's WorldShare Management this year. For the most part, it handles our needs very well, although we wish that the report module was more robust (one needs to subscribe the more sophisticated version). WorldCat Discovery has caused frequent frustration and disappointment. Search results can be confusing and inaccurate. Links to electronic items don't always resolve correctly, leading users to believe our library does not have access to an article (e.g.) when we do, or vice versa. OCLC is not able to deal with embargoed electronic journal holdings, leading to confusion. OCLCSupport is sometimes aware that there's an ongoing problem, sometimes not. I believe it all makes our library look bad. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We had a smooth transition to our new vendor on time. Customer support is also good, better than expected. Our patrons seem happy with the discovery interface and appreciate easy single sign on access to electronic resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Question 3: ...managing your library's print resources? : the ability to move a local holding record from one system shelving location to another is very limited. In many cases we have to delete the item line from one location and copy it to another. To complete the process often takes cataloger intervention. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are generally pretty happy with our ILS. We are slightly less happy with the accompanying discovery service, though I think our frustration (poor relevancy, duplication, inability to get content from competing vendors) has more to do with discovery in general than the particular product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
One issue with WMS is that e-resource management, specifically the collections is not hands off. Bad connection/metadata issues pop up regularly. While the monthly releases are mostly improvements, it is quite a lot to keep up with. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The figure in "Approximate number of items..." is for physical items only. If you include electronic holdings, the number rises to 1,175,692. I wasn't sure which was being requested in that line. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
I think the product has become more stable. The customer service is good. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I find the customer service support to be very impressive. The vendor has always been very responsive to the development needs of the community.. This year even more so--I participated in a pilot project to test and evaluate new functionality and suggestions made resulted in changes to the functionality before it was rolled out to everyone else. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our library uses both WMS Discovery and Summon (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We do not yet have the report designer module that would better utilize the capabilities of WMS for reports. Their customer support has always been excellent. We used to have EBSCO Discovery, but had to cut our subscription to balance the budget. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The only module that needs serious improvement is the one for the reserve collections. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
While we much prefer the system we have now as it have much more 21st century features then our legacy system, the lack of special collection focussed features/functionality is an ongoing obstacle for us. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
No ILS is perfect or infinitely configurable but WMS does what it is supposed to do reasonably well and we found it to be really well priced. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Migrated from ILLiad to Tipasa ILL system this year. We were very pleased with the implementation and customer support provided by OCLC. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
WMS is a discovery platform as well as an ILS. The cost savings with this system is that you only pay for one interface. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
OCLC WMS: Pros: 1. streamline acquisitions and cataloging process which save time and labor. 2. OCLC maintains and updates the system for you. There is no maintenance in house. 3. WorldCat Discovery allow you to find titles that other libraries have. It provides good resources for collection development. Cons: 1. The data was stored in a vendor's cloud system, but not in local servers. There are many search interruptions or slow responses during the peak internet usage hours. 2. Increase in creating original cataloging (records); it's not easy to customize Marc records for local practices. 3. You can't globally download a whole set of Marc records into the system which can be time consuming for making electronic resource records such as Safari e-book database and Gale virtual reference ebooks available and searchable in library catalog. 4.The statistics tool (Analytics) generates very limited information on electronic resources records/collection. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
*number of items includes print and eResources (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Overall level of satisfaction with current ILS -- OCLC's WMS -- is split primarily among generational lines within our library: older staff seem to prefer the former software-based system, while younger staff prefer the newer cloud-based system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Though very satisfied with the back end processes, we continue to experience many frustrations with the WMS Discovery platform. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Collection development is driven by our community, so we need the full exposure to WorldCat resources. However, in a 2008 campus survey, the online catalog was the most important service provided by the library, and a 2018 survey indicated that it was 8th most important service (behind various instructional and technical support services). I'm concerned that the lack of appreciation for the activities of curation are indicative of an overall lack of knowledge about the process of building knowledge. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)
Completeness: We are very impressed with OCLC's ongoing addition of new functionality. Where there are gaps, these often relate to needs specific to a national library and we are not convinced that these functions would be available with other systems. Electronic Resources: We rated this as 5 because we are not using WorldShare to its full capabilities to manage e-resources. Changes to customer support: We rated this as 5 because it is our first year of implementation and we have not noticed changes in the quality of customer support. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
WMS has always linking issues to electronic resources. It differs from time to time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Customer support remains a major problem. It is not uncommon for a support request to receive no response for several months, then a notice from OCLC that the problem has been solved when, in fact, the problem has not been solved. Example: I noticed records being dropped from our daily updated MARC records received through Collection Manager. I originally reported the problem in October 2018. Several back-and-forth emails followed through March 2019 without a full resolution. I heard nothing further until early December 2019, when OCLC reported that there was no evidence that the system was not delivering expected records, and that the ticket was being closed. I needed to check back only about two weeks in our daily feed of MARC records to find a bibliographic record that had been dropped from the collection. I reported this to OCLC, and the support analyst reopened the ticket and said that she would report the new information to the product team and have them analyze the problem further. Although specifics differ on support requests, this example is not unusual. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
El programa WMS es demasiado básico para cubrir las complejas necesidades de la Universidad [...], y responde a criterios acordes con una mentalidad (la anglosajona) bastante diferente de la europea. Sin embargo, hay que reconocer que OCLC ha admitido hacer ciertos desarrollos, solicitados nuestra biblioteca, que supondrán una mejora significativa de dicho SIGB, aunque, probablemente, no suficiente para nosotros. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
We are over all very pleased. We did have some tasking issues implementing this system for our print resources. It took a lot of work to get the WMS workflows to work with our national union cataloguing workflows (importing records etc.) But maybe this is not very surprising since we are the first library to use WMS in our country. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are in the process of migrating to Koha (with Bywater Solutions). So far we are very impressed with Bywater's service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
Personally, I have used Koha in the past and would love to switch. This library uses WMS and I feel as though we will keep using it and Tipasa for a while since we process many ILLs and OCLC controls the ILL game. After using Koha, WMS seems unintuitive and I especially miss Koha's reporting functionality. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
WMS has been an enormous cost savings for us and has excellent features. Only wished we could customize reports without an additional cost, but the canned reports work fine. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This year we migrated to WMS. The system is ok, however, the Discovery is not satisfactory yet. The discovery shows some books or articles as they belong to us but we don't have those books and access to the articles. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] , as part of the [...] consortium, would not consider a new ILS unless the group of member libraries also considered. We have discussed open soure ILS options but at this point in time, no concrete decisions to move away from WMS have really come up. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
WMS is about as good as all the other ILS products out there. The benefit is that OCLC is a non-profit, so you don't get caught up in the "proprietary" software problem. There is also a greater likelihood that requests for changes will be implemented without having to wait years and years. The product isn't perfect, and the Discovery layer isn't great (though I don't like ANY discovery products out there, they're all faulty), but our students, faculty, and public services librarians are getting used to it. It's much easier to use than Voyager; I wish it had a better reporting module that I didn't have to pay for. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Core functionality is adequate (circulation/cataloging). License Manager functionality is not very helpful, nor does it seem necessary. Enhancement requests go nowhere. Analytics functionality is more robust than needs to be, more variety in canned reporting desired but overall it works adequately. KB linking is vastly improved and appreciated. Connection with ILL deflection policies is not where it needs to be. Relationship with ATLAS systems for Interlibrary Loan services is not transparent. Why not just improve WMS ILL? Discovery interface is improving with more 3rd party applications. Developers do not design with end user in mind, though. Overall, we're satisfied with the gradual improvement, but we also have noted various functionality issues that need addressing. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We use WorldCat Discovery somewhat like a traditional OPAC for discovery of physical and electronic books and media. We use EBSCO Discovery for electronic journal article discovery, as our link resolver, and A-Z journal finder. To present, we have not considered WorldCat Discovery "ready for prime time" as a discovery platform, primarily because third party full text metadata is not as good as it could be. Admittedly, we're a strong EBSCO shop, and the user experience for discovery of EBSCO content in EDS is (understandably) excellent. We also push our library holdings, both print and electronic, into EDS. But conversely, we have not considered abandoning WorldCat since the union catalog is not discoverable in EDS (only local holdings), and we rely on WorldCat to support our ILL service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
vendor very responsive to support emails and phone calls. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
New academic programs at our community college meant we needed to migrate to a more robust ILS that would work with a local alliance of academic, research, and medical libraries, and allow for us to get ILLs. OCLC WMS won out in our search. I find cataloging and copy cataloging very fast and easy. Love having something meant for academic libraries, as opposed to our previous ILS, Koha, which we used with a consortium. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The product is continually evolving. When we first acquired the product, it was in its infancy, and it showed. Through feedback from our institution and other institutions, the product has matured, but I wouldn't consider it feature complete. It isn't always easy to manage. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
WMS does not include a shelf reading option. Inventory is also very complicated. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We migrated from SisiDynix Symphony to OCLC WMS in 2019. The migration was relatively smooth, and so far we are pleased with the change though we continue to tweak the implementation. This transition also reduces our yearly maintenance costs, though it will be 4 years until it pays for itself. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Many of our functionality wish-list items are already in product development, just a couple are not. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are relatively satisfied with WMS, and improvements are continuously being made. It is sometimes difficult to keep up with constant updates and there are several elements that could be more automated or that we wonder about the fact that it is not available. History being a guide we will probably not migrate for another 5 years at least. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
No of items in library collection: Print = 3000 / Electronic = 12,000. WMS and WCD continue to mature as products. The recent integration of LibKey into WCD has further enriched the discovery experience for our users. We also also implemented a 2nd WMS/WCD discovery service instance for the [...] (but managed by ANZCA). The ability of 2nd instance to leverage off our existing [...] WMS/WCD assets (via WMS Collection Manager) was crucial to the success of this project. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Local customer support has been unsatisfactory in the past year or so. The appointment of a new General Manager for the local team may improve things. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Estimated number of items unavailable - weeding in-process. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I was very dissatisfied with the migration experience; we had a hard time getting accurate information about our options. We lost a lot of data. However if I am honest, some our problems originated from ignorance on our part and the resulting lack of planning. I have not been happy with WMS record management (and the migration) because it seems oddly inflexible for a company that has built its business on MARC records. The Discovery layer from OCLC also seems to lack many features that were available in our previous provider. For example, it is hard to scope a search appropriately. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Relevancy of search results is an ongoing issue as is inconsistency of search results. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are in the process of migrating from our solo implementation of OCLC WorldShare Management Services/WorldCat Discovery to a consortium implementation of Ex Libris Alma/Primo. We anticipate our new system will go live in December 2020. While WMS has improved immensely in the 6-7 years we've used it, it has still not caught up to the level of functionality we had in our previous ILS or that we expect from our forthcoming Ex Libris system. OCLC WMS still lacks the ability to batch edit holdings records or local bibliographic data. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
Actually the ILS system implemented here is a good one, but unfortunately it had been implemented in the absence of professional ILS trained librarian that is why we have lot of issues with the customization and discovery service. moreover we have it on one pc and we are unable to add more stations to it as we have small peripheral libraries and we want to integrate them. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We have poor customer service from the ILMS regional branchoffice (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Good implementation in terms of data migration, communication, and delivery on time. Many benefits of modern cloud SAAS multi-tenancy solution now being enjoyed. Significant issues with full-text content linking meant that the link resolver element is not being used. Cannot currently handle tax to UK specifications. Circulation matrix is restrictive in some areas - especially around requests and cross branch setup. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
OCLC misses key roadmap implementations to their products and uses dated underlying server structures to provide most of their services. As a result, Worldshare Management Services at first glance seems like a state of the art product until daily use reveals that it is poorly realized concept that doesn't get the TLC necessary to make it truly competitive in the LSP/ILS marketplace. Additionally, Worldcat Discovery has a poorly implemented UI that feels as if it was designed for Librarians first instead of being designed around the needs of the library's communities. Overall, OCLC pushes out new products rather than fully supporting and refining its existing product lineup. As an entity OCLC, would be well served by consolidating its product line-up in order to streamline processes and improve its overall services to its existing costumers. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
|
|
|