The following table presents the 2019 results according to the type and size of the library.
| 2019 OPALS Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OPALS | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 283 | 8.78 | 23 | 8.74 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 8.50 | 0 | 0 | 152 | 8.86 | 14 | 8.50 | ||||
| ILSFunctionality | 283 | 8.70 | 23 | 8.74 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 8.50 | 0 | 0 | 152 | 8.79 | 14 | 8.43 | ||||
| PrintFunctionality | 284 | 8.82 | 23 | 8.87 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 8.67 | 0 | 0 | 153 | 8.88 | 14 | 8.57 | ||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 227 | 7.97 | 18 | 7.83 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 7.00 | 0 | 0 | 133 | 8.22 | 13 | 7.69 | ||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 282 | 8.74 | 23 | 8.30 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 8.00 | 0 | 0 | 152 | 8.84 | 14 | 8.57 | ||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 276 | 8.64 | 22 | 8.50 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 7.83 | 0 | 0 | 150 | 8.67 | 14 | 8.79 | ||||
| 2019 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: OPALS | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 283 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 12 | 19 | 247 | 9 | 8.78 | 9 | ||||
| ILS Functionality | 283 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 37 | 228 | 9 | 8.70 | 9 | |||||
| Print Functionality | 284 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 23 | 251 | 9 | 8.82 | 9 | |||||
| Electronic Functionality | 227 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 40 | 93 | 80 | 8 | 7.97 | 8 | |||
| Company Satisfaction | 280 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 29 | 242 | 9 | 8.80 | 9 | ||||
| Support Satisfaction | 282 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 33 | 239 | 9 | 8.74 | 9 | ||
| Support Improvement | 263 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 13 | 3 | 13 | 119 | 109 | 8 | 8.08 | 8 | ||
| Company Loyalty | 276 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 50 | 213 | 9 | 8.64 | 9 | |||
| Open Source Interest | 272 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 24 | 224 | 9 | 8.35 | 9 | ||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 284 | 1 | 0.35% |
| Considering new Interface | 284 | 19 | 6.69% |
| System Installed on time? | 284 | 277 | 97.54% |
| Average Collection size: | 89893 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 7 |
| Academic | 35 |
| School | 153 |
| Consortium | 14 |
| Special | 12 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 57 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 159 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 17 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 4 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2018 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: OPALS | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 342 | 1 | 5 | 15 | 321 | 9 | 8.92 | 9 | ||||||
| ILS Functionality | 340 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 23 | 310 | 9 | 8.88 | 9 | |||||
| Print Functionality | 339 | 5 | 13 | 321 | 9 | 8.93 | 9 | |||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 286 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 38 | 124 | 118 | 8 | 8.22 | 8 | ||||
| Company Satisfaction | 338 | 1 | 2 | 17 | 318 | 9 | 8.93 | 9 | ||||||
| Support Satisfaction | 341 | 1 | 3 | 21 | 316 | 9 | 8.91 | 9 | ||||||
| Support Improvement | 333 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 22 | 143 | 158 | 9 | 8.32 | 8 | ||||
| Company Loyalty | 340 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 49 | 285 | 9 | 8.78 | 9 | ||||
| Open Source Interest | 325 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 47 | 270 | 9 | 8.69 | 9 | ||||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 342 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Considering new Interface | 342 | 65 | 19.01% |
| System Installed on time? | 342 | 339 | 99.12% |
| Average Collection size: | 102512 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 10 |
| Academic | 30 |
| School | 205 |
| Consortium | 16 |
| Special | 17 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 66 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 207 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 3 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 15 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 8 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2017 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: OPALS | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 261 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 13 | 238 | 9 | 8.85 | 9 | |||||
| ILS Functionality | 259 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 15 | 231 | 9 | 8.81 | 9 | |||||
| Print Functionality | 260 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 243 | 9 | 8.89 | 9 | ||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 220 | 4 | 2 | 51 | 84 | 79 | 8 | 8.05 | 8 | |||||
| Company Satisfaction | 259 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 15 | 238 | 9 | 8.88 | 9 | |||||
| Support Satisfaction | 261 | 2 | 4 | 25 | 230 | 9 | 8.85 | 9 | ||||||
| Support Improvement | 245 | 1 | 10 | 2 | 19 | 111 | 102 | 8 | 8.18 | 8 | ||||
| Company Loyalty | 254 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 32 | 211 | 9 | 8.74 | 9 | ||||
| Open Source Interest | 256 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 43 | 201 | 9 | 8.55 | 9 | |||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 263 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Considering new Interface | 263 | 3 | 1.14% |
| System Installed on time? | 263 | 259 | 98.48% |
| Average Collection size: | 78904 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 9 |
| Academic | 23 |
| School | 165 |
| Consortium | 8 |
| Special | 12 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 69 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 157 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 9 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 5 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2016 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: OPALS | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 218 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 27 | 173 | 9 | 8.59 | 9 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 218 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 10 | 33 | 164 | 9 | 8.54 | 9 | |||
| Print Functionality | 218 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 21 | 178 | 9 | 8.67 | 9 | ||||
| Electronic Functionality | 187 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 47 | 80 | 46 | 8 | 7.67 | 8 |
| Company Satisfaction | 219 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 11 | 21 | 178 | 9 | 8.58 | 9 | |||
| Support Satisfaction | 215 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 28 | 174 | 9 | 8.63 | 9 | |||
| Support Improvement | 204 | 1 | 4 | 17 | 9 | 54 | 59 | 60 | 9 | 7.58 | 8 | |||
| Company Loyalty | 215 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 38 | 160 | 9 | 8.52 | 9 | ||
| Open Source Interest | 209 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 44 | 142 | 9 | 7.99 | 9 | |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 220 | 3 | 1.36% |
| Considering new Interface | 220 | 3 | 1.36% |
| System Installed on time? | 220 | 214 | 97.27% |
| Average Collection size: | 70386 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 7 |
| Academic | 12 |
| School | 150 |
| Consortium | 8 |
| Special | 11 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 74 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 117 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 11 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 4 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2015 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: OPALS | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 207 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 12 | 27 | 159 | 9 | 8.58 | 9 | ||||
| ILS Functionality | 208 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 15 | 37 | 148 | 9 | 8.52 | 9 | ||||
| Print Functionality | 207 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 30 | 160 | 9 | 8.62 | 9 | |||||
| Electronic Functionality | 180 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 9 | 26 | 47 | 90 | 9 | 8.02 | 9 | |
| Company Satisfaction | 208 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 18 | 177 | 9 | 8.69 | 9 | ||
| Support Satisfaction | 203 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 21 | 172 | 9 | 8.69 | 9 | ||||
| Support Improvement | 191 | 1 | 3 | 18 | 5 | 9 | 61 | 94 | 9 | 8.02 | 8 | |||
| Company Loyalty | 205 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 26 | 163 | 9 | 8.55 | 9 | ||
| Open Source Interest | 185 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 146 | 9 | 8.03 | 9 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 214 | 5 | 2.34% |
| Considering new Interface | 214 | 52 | 24.30% |
| System Installed on time? | 214 | 205 | 95.79% |
| Average Collection size: | 126100 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 6 |
| Academic | 12 |
| School | 140 |
| Consortium | 18 |
| Special | 11 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 81 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 93 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 2 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 14 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 6 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2014 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: OPALS | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 129 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 24 | 91 | 9 | 8.48 | 9 | ||||
| ILS Functionality | 130 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 11 | 32 | 75 | 9 | 8.25 | 9 | |||
| Print Functionality | 130 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 20 | 96 | 9 | 8.52 | 9 | |||
| Electronic Functionality | 108 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 20 | 38 | 33 | 8 | 7.54 | 8 | |
| Company Satisfaction | 129 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 21 | 103 | 9 | 8.66 | 9 | |||
| Support Satisfaction | 128 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 19 | 104 | 9 | 8.66 | 9 | |||
| Support Improvement | 123 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 7 | 12 | 42 | 51 | 9 | 7.89 | 8 | |||
| Company Loyalty | 128 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 16 | 101 | 9 | 8.54 | 9 | ||
| Open Source Interest | 115 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 17 | 82 | 9 | 7.89 | 9 | |||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 131 | 3 | 2.29% |
| Considering new Interface | 131 | 7 | 5.34% |
| System Installed on time? | 131 | 127 | 96.95% |
| Average Collection size: | 74910 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 3 |
| Academic | 7 |
| School | 87 |
| Consortium | 8 |
| Special | 4 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 45 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 65 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 4 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 3 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2013 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: OPALS | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 213 | 1 | 4 | 11 | 26 | 171 | 9 | 8.70 | 9 | |||||
| ILS Functionality | 213 | 3 | 4 | 14 | 38 | 154 | 9 | 8.58 | 9 | |||||
| Print Functionality | 213 | 4 | 7 | 28 | 174 | 9 | 8.75 | 9 | ||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 176 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 12 | 59 | 92 | 9 | 8.26 | 9 | ||||
| Company Satisfaction | 212 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 20 | 184 | 9 | 8.81 | 9 | |||||
| Support Satisfaction | 212 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 17 | 186 | 9 | 8.79 | 9 | |||||
| Support Improvement | 196 | 1 | 12 | 2 | 6 | 44 | 131 | 9 | 8.41 | 9 | ||||
| Company Loyalty | 208 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 16 | 182 | 9 | 8.75 | 9 | ||||
| Open Source Interest | 196 | 13 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 166 | 9 | 8.19 | 9 | |||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 215 | 1 | 0.47% |
| Considering new Interface | 215 | 0 | 0.00% |
| System Installed on time? | 215 | 205 | 95.35% |
| Average Collection size: | 22577 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 2 |
| Academic | 5 |
| School | 173 |
| Consortium | 4 |
| Special | 9 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 74 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 102 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 2 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2012 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: OPALS | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 186 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 30 | 143 | 9 | 8.63 | 9 | |||
| ILS Functionality | 186 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 45 | 122 | 9 | 8.51 | 9 | |||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 186 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 25 | 155 | 9 | 8.76 | 9 | ||||
| Support Satisfaction | 184 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 23 | 152 | 9 | 8.70 | 9 | ||||
| Support Improvement | 168 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 5 | 5 | 36 | 104 | 9 | 8.18 | 9 | |||
| Company Loyalty | 177 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 16 | 152 | 9 | 8.72 | 9 | |||
| Open Source Interest | 170 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 13 | 140 | 9 | 8.32 | 9 | ||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 187 | 2 | 1.07% |
| Considering new Interface | 187 | 0 | 0.00% |
| System Installed on time? | 187 | 184 | 98.40% |
| Average Collection size: | 62626 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 4 |
| Academic | 4 |
| School | 136 |
| Consortium | 8 |
| Special | 12 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 78 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 85 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 2 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 6 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 2 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2011 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: OPALS | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 79 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 26 | 40 | 9 | 8.20 | 9 | ||||
| ILS Functionality | 79 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 19 | 17 | 35 | 9 | 7.95 | 8 | ||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 80 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 23 | 48 | 9 | 8.45 | 9 | |||||
| Support Satisfaction | 80 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 19 | 50 | 9 | 8.35 | 9 | ||||
| Support Improvement | 75 | 1 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 28 | 28 | 8 | 7.79 | 8 | ||||
| Company Loyalty | 78 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 12 | 57 | 9 | 8.46 | 9 | ||||
| Open Source Interest | 52 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 38 | 9 | 7.31 | 9 | ||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 81 | 1 | 1.23% |
| Considering new Interface | 81 | 0 | 0.00% |
| System Installed on time? | 81 | 78 | 96.30% |
| Average Collection size: | 89790 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 0 |
| Academic | 1 |
| School | 57 |
| Consortium | 7 |
| Special | 4 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 33 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 33 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 2 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 4 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 1 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2010 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: OPALS | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 100 | 2 | 1 | 13 | 20 | 64 | 9 | 8.43 | 9 | |||||
| ILS Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 100 | 3 | 7 | 14 | 76 | 9 | 8.63 | 9 | ||||||
| Support Satisfaction | 99 | 1 | 5 | 11 | 82 | 9 | 8.76 | 9 | ||||||
| Support Improvement | 96 | 1 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 17 | 64 | 9 | 8.27 | 9 | ||||
| Company Loyalty | 99 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 85 | 9 | 8.71 | 9 | ||||
| Open Source Interest | 98 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 86 | 9 | 8.32 | 9 | ||||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 106 | 2 | 1.89% |
| Considering new Interface | 106 | 2 | 1.89% |
| System Installed on time? | 106 | 97 | 91.51% |
| Average Collection size: | 49191 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 0 |
| Academic | 1 |
| School | 90 |
| Consortium | 6 |
| Special | 4 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 35 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 53 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 3 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 1 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2009 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: OPALS | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 42 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 8 | 18 | 9 | 7.67 | 8 | |||
| ILS Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 42 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 11 | 22 | 9 | 7.93 | 9 | |||
| Support Satisfaction | 42 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 10 | 25 | 9 | 8.12 | 9 | |||
| Support Improvement | 42 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 17 | 9 | 7.17 | 8 | ||||
| Company Loyalty | 42 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 27 | 9 | 8.00 | 9 | ||||
| Open Source Interest | 34 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 23 | 9 | 6.88 | 9 | |||||
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 42 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Considering new Interface | 42 | 0 | 0.00% |
| System Installed on time? | 42 | 37 | 88.10% |
2019 : gen: 8.78 company 8.80 loyalty 8.64 support 8.74
2018 : gen: 8.92 company 8.93 loyalty 8.78 support 8.91
2017 : gen: 8.85 company 8.88 loyalty 8.74 support 8.85
2016 : gen: 8.59 company 8.58 loyalty 8.52 support 8.63
2015 : gen: 8.58 company 8.69 loyalty 8.55 support 8.69
2014 : gen: 8.48 company 8.66 loyalty 8.54 support 8.66
2013 : gen: 8.70 company 8.81 loyalty 8.75 support 8.79
2012 : gen: 8.63 company 8.76 loyalty 8.72 support 8.70
2011 : gen: 8.20 company 8.45 loyalty 8.46 support 8.35
2010 : gen: 8.43 company 8.63 loyalty 8.71 support 8.76
2009 : gen: 7.67 company 7.93 loyalty 8.00 support 8.12
[...] 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)
|
|
|