Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Alma

Statistics according to type and size categories

The following table presents the 2019 results according to the type and size of the library.

2019 Alma Responses by Sector
AlmaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS3756.70 916.771246.65936.800000126.92
ILSFunctionality3766.88 927.111246.95936.830000127.33
PrintFunctionality3746.97 917.221246.94936.950000126.92
ElectronicFunctionality3726.65 906.531236.85936.540000126.92
SatisfactionCustomerSupport3755.86 936.021235.88925.730000125.58
CompanyLoyalty3716.60 936.521226.72916.670000127.17



2019 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction375 7 6 10 39 70 142 79 22 76.707
ILS Functionality376 5 7 15 30 48 148 87 36 76.887
Print Functionality374 1 3 1 19 32 56 114 104 44 76.977
Electronic Functionality372 2 6 7 14 48 62 116 93 24 76.657
Company Satisfaction376 8 7 15 18 43 75 115 66 29 76.387
Support Satisfaction375 3 8 12 19 28 64 91 88 43 19 65.866
Support Improvement365 4 9 5 21 52 128 49 50 22 25 55.415
Company Loyalty371 6 7 8 8 17 51 41 92 79 62 76.607
Open Source Interest372 129 51 47 42 29 28 19 11 8 8 02.302

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS383 143.66%
Considering new Interface383 71.83%
System Installed on time?383 34590.08%

Average Collection size: 1494019

TypeCount
Public0
Academic320
School0
Consortium12
Special6

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00010
[2] 10,001-100,00071
[3] 100,001-250,00053
[4] 250,001-1,000,000115
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000107
[6] over 10,000,00111



2018 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction311 2 3 4 14 34 63 118 69 4 76.557
ILS Functionality310 1 1 5 14 33 57 105 81 13 76.717
Print Functionality307 1 2 5 11 24 48 99 87 30 76.947
Electronic Functionality305 2 2 6 6 14 41 46 96 79 13 76.527
Company Satisfaction310 1 5 6 13 19 35 57 91 70 13 76.337
Support Satisfaction308 2 8 13 17 20 48 70 68 50 12 65.876
Support Improvement295 3 5 7 9 38 112 42 33 30 16 55.515
Company Loyalty305 8 5 8 6 17 33 37 71 65 55 76.587
Open Source Interest304 104 51 49 22 27 20 16 8 4 3 02.091

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS317 103.15%
Considering new Interface317 92.84%
System Installed on time?317 29191.80%

Average Collection size: 1442753

TypeCount
Public0
Academic261
School0
Consortium10
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00059
[3] 100,001-250,00039
[4] 250,001-1,000,000101
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00087
[6] over 10,000,0016



2017 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction253 4 5 8 27 50 107 43 9 76.587
ILS Functionality252 3 3 7 20 45 102 61 11 76.807
Print Functionality253 3 4 6 23 31 91 75 20 76.967
Electronic Functionality253 2 3 6 7 23 60 72 65 15 76.677
Company Satisfaction252 1 4 3 2 14 39 43 73 55 18 76.507
Support Satisfaction251 1 5 5 8 23 45 53 60 37 14 76.046
Support Improvement247 1 4 6 9 31 83 38 33 21 21 55.665
Company Loyalty249 5 5 5 5 11 29 25 57 57 50 76.727
Open Source Interest249 87 52 42 22 17 15 7 3 1 3 01.781

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS260 31.15%
Considering new Interface260 41.54%
System Installed on time?260 24293.08%

Average Collection size: 1178078

TypeCount
Public0
Academic225
School0
Consortium7
Special6

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00040
[3] 100,001-250,00039
[4] 250,001-1,000,00088
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00073
[6] over 10,000,0011



2016 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction157 2 2 2 3 5 18 28 54 33 10 76.537
ILS Functionality157 1 1 1 7 7 12 22 51 44 11 76.707
Print Functionality157 1 1 1 4 7 13 24 42 47 17 86.857
Electronic Functionality153 3 1 2 8 12 28 37 44 18 86.807
Company Satisfaction157 3 1 2 7 8 15 28 41 38 14 76.487
Support Satisfaction156 2 2 4 10 10 13 26 46 32 11 76.277
Support Improvement152 1 2 5 5 17 45 21 23 17 16 55.846
Company Loyalty155 4 3 1 2 8 16 15 34 32 40 96.887
Open Source Interest155 72 29 24 9 9 7 1 3 1 01.361

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS161 42.48%
Considering new Interface161 53.11%
System Installed on time?161 15193.79%

Average Collection size: 1375159

TypeCount
Public0
Academic138
School0
Consortium4
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0007
[2] 10,001-100,00016
[3] 100,001-250,00027
[4] 250,001-1,000,00054
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00049
[6] over 10,000,0011



2015 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction87 1 1 4 3 9 22 26 21 76.377
ILS Functionality87 1 2 2 3 9 23 29 17 1 76.377
Print Functionality86 1 1 1 4 6 17 28 22 6 76.747
Electronic Functionality86 1 2 2 3 18 30 22 8 76.887
Company Satisfaction87 1 1 1 3 1 12 15 23 22 8 76.617
Support Satisfaction87 1 1 3 2 5 15 11 28 14 7 76.267
Support Improvement84 2 2 1 10 20 10 15 16 8 56.066
Company Loyalty83 1 2 3 6 6 5 20 21 19 86.947
Open Source Interest85 32 17 14 7 5 3 3 4 01.731

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS88 22.27%
Considering new Interface88 11.14%
System Installed on time?88 8090.91%

Average Collection size: 1924546

TypeCount
Public0
Academic74
School0
Consortium2
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,0009
[3] 100,001-250,0007
[4] 250,001-1,000,00032
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00033
[6] over 10,000,0012



2014 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction46 2 1 1 4 11 17 10 76.437
ILS Functionality46 1 1 3 6 17 13 4 1 66.096
Print Functionality46 1 3 4 14 9 13 2 66.597
Electronic Functionality46 1 1 1 4 12 10 14 3 86.747
Company Satisfaction46 2 1 3 2 5 19 9 5 76.677
Support Satisfaction46 1 2 1 4 11 20 5 2 76.337
Support Improvement44 1 2 1 4 9 8 5 9 5 56.096
Company Loyalty45 1 1 2 6 2 11 13 9 86.967
Open Source Interest44 18 7 11 2 3 3 01.411

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS46 24.35%
Considering new Interface46 12.17%
System Installed on time?46 4291.30%

Average Collection size: 2463832

TypeCount
Public0
Academic40
School0
Consortium1
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0001
[3] 100,001-250,0007
[4] 250,001-1,000,00016
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00020
[6] over 10,000,0011



2013 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction15 1 1 2 1 6 4 76.207
ILS Functionality15 1 1 1 3 4 4 1 65.336
Print Functionality15 1 1 2 2 3 4 2 86.407
Electronic Functionality15 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 76.007
Company Satisfaction15 1 1 1 7 3 2 76.807
Support Satisfaction15 1 3 1 5 4 1 76.737
Support Improvement15 1 5 1 4 4 56.337
Company Loyalty16 1 1 4 6 4 87.318
Open Source Interest17 9 2 1 1 3 1 01.880

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS18 316.67%
Considering new Interface18 15.56%
System Installed on time?18 1794.44%

Average Collection size: 1468604

TypeCount
Public0
Academic16
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,0000
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0009
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0006
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction7 1 1 2 2 1 44.864
ILS Functionality7 1 1 1 1 3 74.865
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction7 1 1 1 2 2 87.148
Support Satisfaction7 1 1 1 1 1 2 96.147
Support Improvement7 1 1 2 2 1 76.867
Company Loyalty7 2 1 4 96.439
Open Source Interest7 3 1 1 1 1 02.291

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS8 225.00%
Considering new Interface8 112.50%
System Installed on time?8 787.50%

Average Collection size: 1033620

TypeCount
Public0
Academic6
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,0000
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0003
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0003
[6] over 10,000,0010


1 Responses for Alma in 2011

0 Responses for Alma in 2010

0 Responses for Alma in 2009

0 Responses for Alma in 2008

0 Responses for Alma in 2007

2019 : gen: 6.70 company 6.38 loyalty 6.60 support 5.86

2018 : gen: 6.55 company 6.33 loyalty 6.58 support 5.87

2017 : gen: 6.58 company 6.50 loyalty 6.72 support 6.04

2016 : gen: 6.53 company 6.48 loyalty 6.88 support 6.27

2015 : gen: 6.37 company 6.61 loyalty 6.94 support 6.26

2014 : gen: 6.43 company 6.67 loyalty 6.96 support 6.33

2013 : gen: 6.20 company 6.80 loyalty 7.31 support 6.73

2012 : gen: 4.86 company 7.14 loyalty 6.43 support 6.14

Comments (survey2019)

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)

- (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; 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)

ILS