Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Polaris

Statistics according to type and size categories

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

2019 Polaris Responses by Sector
PolarisallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS2207.41 87.13101267.48427.48126.331147.64
ILSFunctionality2197.34 87.13101267.44417.32126.171147.64
PrintFunctionality2157.74 88.00101247.59407.90117.731148.29
ElectronicFunctionality2186.19 85.75101246.25426.45125.501145.79
SatisfactionCustomerSupport2146.94 86.25101216.91427.10126.751147.43
CompanyLoyalty2106.45 85.13101196.39426.83125.671147.14



2019 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction220 5 5 10 25 51 77 47 87.418
ILS Functionality219 6 4 7 31 58 70 43 87.348
Print Functionality215 1 1 1 1 2 5 17 39 82 66 87.748
Electronic Functionality218 6 2 6 15 18 28 22 54 34 33 76.197
Company Satisfaction216 2 3 4 5 10 28 23 52 51 38 76.757
Support Satisfaction214 1 2 4 10 7 22 28 33 54 53 86.948
Support Improvement212 2 1 8 7 19 72 26 18 28 31 55.945
Company Loyalty210 7 6 6 5 11 24 23 43 47 38 86.457
Open Source Interest208 62 28 24 17 20 30 9 4 4 10 02.702

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS227 198.37%
Considering new Interface227 167.05%
System Installed on time?227 20389.43%

Average Collection size: 491957

TypeCount
Public197
Academic9
School1
Consortium14
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00021
[2] 10,001-100,00086
[3] 100,001-250,00042
[4] 250,001-1,000,00044
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00018
[6] over 10,000,0011



2018 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction258 1 2 1 4 3 11 20 77 86 53 87.398
ILS Functionality256 2 1 4 3 11 22 69 99 45 87.408
Print Functionality252 4 1 4 6 12 46 121 58 87.678
Electronic Functionality253 8 4 4 6 12 29 45 59 52 34 76.437
Company Satisfaction252 5 4 3 13 8 28 35 57 61 38 86.597
Support Satisfaction251 1 5 3 7 15 19 28 54 62 57 86.947
Support Improvement247 8 3 9 6 26 79 30 27 30 29 55.705
Company Loyalty247 10 2 7 9 11 34 19 49 57 49 86.527
Open Source Interest248 69 31 36 22 29 32 12 6 4 7 02.642

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS270 228.15%
Considering new Interface270 269.63%
System Installed on time?270 24891.85%

Average Collection size: 427048

TypeCount
Public243
Academic9
School0
Consortium17
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00020
[2] 10,001-100,00099
[3] 100,001-250,00050
[4] 250,001-1,000,00058
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00022
[6] over 10,000,0010



2017 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction263 1 4 1 7 14 31 73 87 45 87.258
ILS Functionality261 2 6 4 9 21 85 93 41 87.348
Print Functionality263 1 1 2 2 3 9 14 50 104 77 87.718
Electronic Functionality257 4 2 14 6 15 24 43 57 59 33 86.447
Company Satisfaction259 3 2 4 5 14 34 32 63 63 39 76.717
Support Satisfaction248 2 3 4 8 11 15 30 69 61 45 76.907
Support Improvement244 11 2 6 12 24 69 23 35 29 33 55.755
Company Loyalty255 9 5 3 7 20 23 29 47 54 58 96.607
Open Source Interest256 90 28 38 23 26 22 12 7 4 6 02.322

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS267 207.49%
Considering new Interface267 3011.24%
System Installed on time?267 24792.51%

Average Collection size: 418065

TypeCount
Public228
Academic11
School3
Consortium21
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00011
[2] 10,001-100,000119
[3] 100,001-250,00051
[4] 250,001-1,000,00051
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00030
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction216 1 3 3 2 6 29 60 69 43 87.358
ILS Functionality218 2 3 2 4 11 26 61 69 40 87.258
Print Functionality213 1 2 2 6 14 50 76 62 87.728
Electronic Functionality212 9 1 5 8 13 20 34 59 35 28 76.307
Company Satisfaction213 1 8 3 9 22 29 53 51 37 76.847
Support Satisfaction212 1 1 3 2 14 18 37 41 47 48 96.967
Support Improvement205 7 3 8 7 26 62 17 37 18 20 55.565
Company Loyalty213 8 1 5 17 22 22 40 51 47 86.757
Open Source Interest215 92 30 28 15 20 15 6 5 2 2 01.821

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS219 177.76%
Considering new Interface219 2310.50%
System Installed on time?219 20593.61%

Average Collection size: 453385

TypeCount
Public180
Academic17
School4
Consortium15
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0009
[2] 10,001-100,00098
[3] 100,001-250,00042
[4] 250,001-1,000,00038
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00022
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction206 3 4 2 9 24 69 61 34 77.247
ILS Functionality207 1 2 4 1 13 22 50 82 32 87.308
Print Functionality207 3 1 1 3 1 10 8 36 94 50 87.578
Electronic Functionality206 3 3 4 15 7 31 35 52 33 23 76.237
Company Satisfaction206 1 2 3 7 7 29 34 43 54 26 86.677
Support Satisfaction204 2 3 5 13 25 27 30 56 43 86.907
Support Improvement195 7 3 11 18 20 58 13 27 18 20 55.335
Company Loyalty198 5 3 5 9 12 18 21 33 50 42 86.637
Open Source Interest204 82 27 27 16 17 15 9 4 1 6 02.041

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS215 177.91%
Considering new Interface215 2612.09%
System Installed on time?215 19791.63%

Average Collection size: 459670

TypeCount
Public184
Academic11
School0
Consortium18
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00097
[3] 100,001-250,00046
[4] 250,001-1,000,00043
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00025
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction169 1 1 1 8 19 43 59 37 87.518
ILS Functionality169 1 1 1 1 1 6 20 46 59 33 87.408
Print Functionality167 3 1 1 1 5 9 33 64 50 87.668
Electronic Functionality164 5 3 7 12 22 34 34 33 14 66.206
Company Satisfaction168 1 1 1 6 9 25 46 44 35 77.237
Support Satisfaction165 1 4 4 6 2 14 41 49 44 87.368
Support Improvement161 4 3 5 7 20 48 16 22 20 16 55.645
Company Loyalty167 6 1 2 9 9 20 29 43 48 97.118
Open Source Interest161 63 22 16 13 16 14 6 8 2 1 02.141

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS170 95.29%
Considering new Interface170 169.41%
System Installed on time?170 16496.47%

Average Collection size: 570334

TypeCount
Public143
Academic10
School0
Consortium14
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00063
[3] 100,001-250,00045
[4] 250,001-1,000,00033
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00020
[6] over 10,000,0011



2013 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction138 1 9 10 34 49 35 87.638
ILS Functionality138 3 6 12 36 51 30 87.548
Print Functionality136 2 2 2 8 7 19 52 44 87.658
Electronic Functionality136 3 3 3 6 8 19 22 22 36 14 86.287
Company Satisfaction136 1 1 11 7 27 46 43 87.708
Support Satisfaction137 3 2 11 9 30 41 41 87.548
Support Improvement135 1 1 4 2 32 15 22 27 31 56.837
Company Loyalty137 2 1 3 3 8 8 23 29 60 97.628
Open Source Interest134 60 18 20 8 5 13 3 5 2 01.781

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS143 10.70%
Considering new Interface143 1510.49%
System Installed on time?143 13292.31%

Average Collection size: 532870

TypeCount
Public118
Academic11
School1
Consortium11
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00057
[3] 100,001-250,00042
[4] 250,001-1,000,00018
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00016
[6] over 10,000,0011



2012 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction152 2 4 8 29 64 45 87.878
ILS Functionality152 1 1 4 8 54 51 33 77.628
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction151 2 2 1 6 9 17 60 54 87.838
Support Satisfaction152 1 3 2 5 11 44 44 42 77.528
Support Improvement144 2 3 8 50 19 17 16 29 56.376
Company Loyalty152 1 1 2 14 3 21 24 86 97.979
Open Source Interest149 50 19 23 22 12 10 8 3 1 1 02.112

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS161 21.24%
Considering new Interface161 63.73%
System Installed on time?161 15093.17%

Average Collection size: 411671

TypeCount
Public140
Academic8
School1
Consortium9
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00054
[3] 100,001-250,00043
[4] 250,001-1,000,00027
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00027
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction102 4 1 3 3 19 37 35 87.778
ILS Functionality102 1 4 8 20 46 23 87.718
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction100 1 2 3 2 4 15 36 37 97.808
Support Satisfaction100 2 2 4 2 6 22 29 33 97.558
Support Improvement97 3 1 2 2 6 23 10 12 18 20 56.377
Company Loyalty100 1 2 2 2 2 2 9 28 52 97.959
Open Source Interest99 46 12 20 8 2 6 3 1 1 01.481

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS106 21.89%
Considering new Interface106 87.55%
System Installed on time?106 10195.28%

Average Collection size: 541249

TypeCount
Public91
Academic3
School1
Consortium9
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00039
[3] 100,001-250,00022
[4] 250,001-1,000,00020
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00015
[6] over 10,000,0011



2010 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction101 1 3 2 1 3 17 42 32 87.778
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction100 2 2 6 3 14 32 41 97.838
Support Satisfaction101 1 4 1 4 3 18 30 40 97.748
Support Improvement100 1 1 2 3 17 11 6 33 26 87.118
Company Loyalty100 1 1 1 2 4 6 8 25 52 97.929
Open Source Interest100 41 13 17 6 6 5 5 4 1 2 01.981

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS104 65.77%
Considering new Interface104 109.62%
System Installed on time?104 9995.19%

Average Collection size: 356804

TypeCount
Public92
Academic6
School0
Consortium6
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00033
[3] 100,001-250,00020
[4] 250,001-1,000,00017
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0009
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction92 1 1 2 1 1 13 52 21 87.798
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction92 1 1 1 4 4 6 48 27 87.808
Support Satisfaction91 2 1 2 1 1 17 45 22 87.688
Support Improvement87 3 1 1 3 13 12 8 29 17 86.838
Company Loyalty91 3 1 1 1 5 2 5 37 36 87.688
Open Source Interest90 27 21 13 2 6 10 4 3 3 1 02.281

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS92 66.52%
Considering new Interface92 66.52%
System Installed on time?92 8592.39%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction51 2 3 4 5 21 16 87.738
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction51 4 3 2 5 15 22 97.768
Support Satisfaction51 1 4 4 3 8 11 20 97.418
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty52 3 1 1 2 1 2 3 14 25 97.338
Open Source Interest51 15 13 6 3 2 7 1 1 3 02.291

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS53 59.43%
Considering new Interface53 35.66%
System Installed on time?53 4890.57%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction59 1 1 1 5 12 18 21 97.788
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction64 1 1 3 2 11 20 26 97.898
Support Satisfaction64 1 3 2 8 17 33 98.119
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty63 2 2 2 3 5 7 18 24 97.498
Open Source Interest62 20 11 11 3 5 4 2 3 1 2 02.272

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS64 11.56%
Considering new Interface64 23.13%
System Installed on time?64 11.56%




2019 : gen: 7.41 company 6.75 loyalty 6.45 support 6.94

2018 : gen: 7.39 company 6.59 loyalty 6.52 support 6.94

2017 : gen: 7.25 company 6.71 loyalty 6.60 support 6.90

2016 : gen: 7.35 company 6.84 loyalty 6.75 support 6.96

2015 : gen: 7.24 company 6.67 loyalty 6.63 support 6.90

2014 : gen: 7.51 company 7.23 loyalty 7.11 support 7.36

2013 : gen: 7.63 company 7.70 loyalty 7.62 support 7.54

2012 : gen: 7.87 company 7.83 loyalty 7.97 support 7.52

2011 : gen: 7.77 company 7.80 loyalty 7.95 support 7.55

2010 : gen: 7.77 company 7.83 loyalty 7.92 support 7.74

2009 : gen: 7.79 company 7.80 loyalty 7.68 support 7.68

2008 : gen: 7.73 company 7.76 loyalty 7.33 support 7.41

2007 : gen: 7.78 company 7.89 loyalty 7.49 support 8.11

Comments (survey2019)

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)

ILS