Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Symphony

Statistics according to type and size categories

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

2019 Symphony Responses by Sector
SymphonyallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS4396.70 626.02286.43196.161536.97726.99236.39127.50276.59
ILSFunctionality4366.74 626.47286.21185.891516.90726.90236.35127.50276.70
PrintFunctionality4337.10 616.74287.00196.681497.15717.48236.43127.83277.41
ElectronicFunctionality4265.76 604.72285.46185.061486.21716.01225.73126.08255.64
SatisfactionCustomerSupport4237.22 616.75286.96187.061467.13677.57237.48127.67277.59
CompanyLoyalty4296.48 625.55276.04185.171486.73717.00236.30127.25267.04



2019 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction439 5 11 8 9 16 33 67 115 122 53 86.707
ILS Functionality436 4 10 3 11 21 27 69 118 126 47 86.747
Print Functionality433 5 6 3 9 17 23 43 92 163 72 87.108
Electronic Functionality426 18 17 22 16 40 48 59 95 74 37 75.766
Company Satisfaction434 7 10 5 14 21 27 54 97 131 68 86.787
Support Satisfaction423 5 3 7 9 16 30 36 71 130 116 87.228
Support Improvement422 6 5 3 8 43 108 56 58 64 71 56.266
Company Loyalty429 23 13 10 16 22 32 42 72 97 102 96.487
Open Source Interest429 132 46 48 28 56 40 23 18 20 18 02.882

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS443 7416.70%
Considering new Interface443 5111.51%
System Installed on time?443 40491.20%

Average Collection size: 674873

TypeCount
Public258
Academic112
School12
Consortium28
Special6

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00019
[2] 10,001-100,000148
[3] 100,001-250,00084
[4] 250,001-1,000,000100
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00060
[6] over 10,000,0014



2018 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction473 5 4 5 15 18 34 65 157 118 52 76.777
ILS Functionality471 3 5 7 16 16 46 76 125 122 55 76.727
Print Functionality471 8 4 8 6 10 28 51 104 162 90 87.138
Electronic Functionality460 22 16 25 23 38 50 79 108 58 41 75.656
Company Satisfaction468 4 6 11 15 18 33 56 137 120 68 76.797
Support Satisfaction462 2 7 13 8 19 34 39 103 122 115 87.088
Support Improvement448 9 1 11 14 37 137 49 52 66 72 56.106
Company Loyalty459 18 9 20 17 27 41 47 95 88 97 96.407
Open Source Interest460 158 56 58 23 43 43 31 24 5 19 02.592

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS481 8918.50%
Considering new Interface481 459.36%
System Installed on time?481 43590.44%

Average Collection size: 552666

TypeCount
Public283
Academic122
School13
Consortium25
Special8

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00014
[2] 10,001-100,000173
[3] 100,001-250,000104
[4] 250,001-1,000,000108
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00053
[6] over 10,000,0012



2017 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction531 5 5 13 14 23 39 89 154 122 67 76.697
ILS Functionality531 1 7 15 13 24 45 92 150 130 54 76.647
Print Functionality523 4 3 12 8 15 30 54 124 177 96 87.148
Electronic Functionality525 14 21 34 30 41 76 87 109 78 35 75.616
Company Satisfaction523 4 8 10 13 24 54 73 116 133 88 86.777
Support Satisfaction518 3 7 6 16 17 38 53 100 160 118 87.118
Support Improvement512 5 1 9 8 45 137 61 83 89 74 56.316
Company Loyalty516 31 5 23 13 25 51 56 107 103 102 76.347
Open Source Interest517 160 69 65 33 68 51 27 21 7 16 02.582

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS536 10719.96%
Considering new Interface536 519.51%
System Installed on time?536 48690.67%

Average Collection size: 633322

TypeCount
Public301
Academic141
School16
Consortium32
Special9

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00023
[2] 10,001-100,000179
[3] 100,001-250,000116
[4] 250,001-1,000,000122
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00066
[6] over 10,000,0013



2016 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction431 3 4 10 12 17 31 58 126 117 53 76.797
ILS Functionality431 2 2 9 13 21 31 54 132 111 56 76.827
Print Functionality426 6 1 4 8 11 17 31 104 153 91 87.328
Electronic Functionality422 16 12 24 22 38 45 78 80 73 34 75.746
Company Satisfaction427 6 4 11 10 21 32 49 110 111 73 86.817
Support Satisfaction418 4 4 5 10 17 29 44 91 111 103 87.118
Support Improvement410 5 4 5 8 44 101 53 50 67 73 56.296
Company Loyalty425 17 11 7 11 16 46 41 84 90 102 96.647
Open Source Interest418 140 57 54 32 46 38 20 11 6 14 02.412

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS436 8118.58%
Considering new Interface436 4911.24%
System Installed on time?436 40292.20%

Average Collection size: 2753248

TypeCount
Public235
Academic132
School14
Consortium25
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00016
[2] 10,001-100,000151
[3] 100,001-250,00091
[4] 250,001-1,000,00096
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00059
[6] over 10,000,0015



2015 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction437 5 6 12 8 20 37 58 131 113 47 76.667
ILS Functionality436 8 15 12 18 41 54 132 116 40 76.627
Print Functionality437 4 5 4 5 17 22 36 123 144 77 87.168
Electronic Functionality432 12 20 23 27 35 62 61 89 69 34 75.666
Company Satisfaction432 5 9 13 15 18 30 51 109 119 63 86.697
Support Satisfaction427 5 4 14 12 15 33 36 101 123 84 86.927
Support Improvement420 8 7 3 5 46 108 42 71 69 61 56.206
Company Loyalty433 23 14 10 9 23 44 49 84 97 80 86.357
Open Source Interest426 153 61 59 27 40 37 15 15 5 14 02.271

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS460 8217.83%
Considering new Interface460 4710.22%
System Installed on time?460 40287.39%

Average Collection size: 653631

TypeCount
Public256
Academic116
School22
Consortium27
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00021
[2] 10,001-100,000168
[3] 100,001-250,00091
[4] 250,001-1,000,00098
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00051
[6] over 10,000,0011



2014 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction354 1 4 9 16 14 29 55 124 76 26 76.537
ILS Functionality355 1 2 11 13 16 29 66 104 85 28 76.567
Print Functionality351 3 2 4 4 11 13 43 81 125 65 87.248
Electronic Functionality347 10 19 28 34 17 45 63 72 41 18 75.316
Company Satisfaction352 9 12 17 19 26 57 98 80 34 76.437
Support Satisfaction348 2 4 7 11 13 29 50 86 89 57 86.827
Support Improvement339 2 3 2 9 38 96 29 49 53 58 56.286
Company Loyalty343 13 12 13 17 22 38 43 56 68 61 86.157
Open Source Interest346 108 61 49 26 31 25 18 6 8 14 02.392

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS361 7621.05%
Considering new Interface361 5214.40%
System Installed on time?361 32289.20%

Average Collection size: 707313

TypeCount
Public182
Academic111
School7
Consortium19
Special6

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00014
[2] 10,001-100,000118
[3] 100,001-250,00081
[4] 250,001-1,000,00075
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00049
[6] over 10,000,0012



2013 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction315 3 3 8 14 18 23 36 99 74 37 76.617
ILS Functionality314 2 2 7 20 10 20 52 88 72 41 76.657
Print Functionality314 3 1 3 4 9 20 35 76 99 64 87.218
Electronic Functionality307 7 17 21 29 24 46 52 50 36 25 65.366
Company Satisfaction313 4 9 10 16 14 17 43 81 77 42 76.517
Support Satisfaction312 4 3 6 8 16 26 28 77 79 65 86.917
Support Improvement307 4 2 7 5 17 83 23 57 50 59 56.467
Company Loyalty312 21 8 10 9 17 41 26 56 61 63 96.197
Open Source Interest304 90 34 49 22 27 40 13 13 7 9 02.672

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS324 6620.37%
Considering new Interface324 5817.90%
System Installed on time?324 29290.12%

Average Collection size: 835498

TypeCount
Public139
Academic87
School29
Consortium26
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00024
[2] 10,001-100,00080
[3] 100,001-250,00064
[4] 250,001-1,000,00067
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00041
[6] over 10,000,0012



2012 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction380 2 2 10 19 25 48 50 122 72 30 76.377
ILS Functionality380 1 1 5 24 24 41 47 114 94 29 76.527
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction378 1 6 14 26 22 43 65 98 71 32 76.217
Support Satisfaction378 1 5 11 14 35 44 36 102 80 50 76.487
Support Improvement371 3 3 6 16 26 99 45 55 69 49 56.236
Company Loyalty376 30 11 22 18 25 48 33 76 54 59 75.707
Open Source Interest374 97 44 47 35 35 42 28 19 13 14 03.012

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS393 7920.10%
Considering new Interface393 7619.34%
System Installed on time?393 34888.55%

Average Collection size: 644460

TypeCount
Public206
Academic114
School4
Consortium21
Special9

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00017
[2] 10,001-100,000125
[3] 100,001-250,00093
[4] 250,001-1,000,00080
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00054
[6] over 10,000,0012



2011 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction326 5 6 9 11 21 37 61 102 57 17 76.187
ILS Functionality320 1 2 7 18 18 30 63 93 69 19 76.397
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction326 6 7 19 20 24 35 58 83 53 21 75.886
Support Satisfaction324 4 10 11 14 18 44 54 72 68 29 76.177
Support Improvement323 5 10 10 12 28 81 37 60 48 32 55.876
Company Loyalty323 23 16 16 13 31 44 40 54 55 31 85.476
Open Source Interest318 63 32 48 21 34 45 18 27 12 18 03.483

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS333 7622.82%
Considering new Interface333 8826.43%
System Installed on time?333 30390.99%

Average Collection size: 570393

TypeCount
Public151
Academic116
School4
Consortium15
Special10

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00010
[2] 10,001-100,00098
[3] 100,001-250,00077
[4] 250,001-1,000,00084
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00040
[6] over 10,000,0011



2010 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction271 3 5 9 12 19 37 41 77 50 18 76.157
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction271 8 8 17 11 26 37 54 57 39 14 75.636
Support Satisfaction269 8 7 15 20 23 32 50 56 39 19 75.676
Support Improvement271 11 7 16 28 21 87 26 26 26 23 55.155
Company Loyalty270 18 15 10 24 29 34 40 40 32 28 65.266
Open Source Interest269 64 26 30 17 19 31 29 19 14 20 03.593

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS282 5720.21%
Considering new Interface282 8128.72%
System Installed on time?282 24285.82%

Average Collection size: 580366

TypeCount
Public142
Academic88
School4
Consortium15
Special10

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00085
[3] 100,001-250,00051
[4] 250,001-1,000,00054
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00028
[6] over 10,000,0011



2009 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction304 3 5 6 9 16 62 56 96 44 7 76.066
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction303 5 9 27 23 22 56 48 79 29 5 75.346
Support Satisfaction303 3 12 30 23 17 54 45 66 41 12 75.446
Support Improvement292 7 11 19 29 23 89 35 39 30 10 55.095
Company Loyalty301 32 14 12 14 23 67 31 49 43 16 55.065
Open Source Interest300 53 34 26 25 30 40 25 20 23 24 03.904

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS310 4915.81%
Considering new Interface310 8527.42%
System Installed on time?310 26184.19%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction233 4 7 11 19 16 35 37 64 32 8 75.686
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction234 9 9 16 31 28 23 43 43 26 6 65.056
Support Satisfaction233 12 14 23 18 21 36 39 38 23 9 64.915
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty233 21 13 19 18 17 36 20 43 34 12 74.955
Open Source Interest231 36 23 21 24 17 37 12 23 16 22 54.114

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS234 5423.08%
Considering new Interface234 6929.49%
System Installed on time?234 21491.45%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction200 4 1 5 10 6 23 29 64 43 15 76.417
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction284 5 8 20 23 27 43 47 61 38 12 75.506
Support Satisfaction282 6 10 13 27 37 33 42 64 34 16 75.486
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty279 25 10 12 9 16 59 31 42 36 39 55.526
Open Source Interest281 54 41 36 32 17 36 21 14 9 21 03.353

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS288 4214.58%
Considering new Interface288 6020.83%
System Installed on time?288 10.35%




2019 : gen: 6.70 company 6.78 loyalty 6.48 support 7.22

2018 : gen: 6.77 company 6.79 loyalty 6.40 support 7.08

2017 : gen: 6.69 company 6.77 loyalty 6.34 support 7.11

2016 : gen: 6.79 company 6.81 loyalty 6.64 support 7.11

2015 : gen: 6.66 company 6.69 loyalty 6.35 support 6.92

2014 : gen: 6.53 company 6.43 loyalty 6.15 support 6.82

2013 : gen: 6.61 company 6.51 loyalty 6.19 support 6.91

2012 : gen: 6.37 company 6.21 loyalty 5.70 support 6.48

2011 : gen: 6.18 company 5.88 loyalty 5.47 support 6.17

2010 : gen: 6.15 company 5.63 loyalty 5.26 support 5.67

2009 : gen: 6.06 company 5.34 loyalty 5.06 support 5.44

2008 : gen: 5.68 company 5.05 loyalty 4.95 support 4.91

2007 : gen: 6.41 company 5.50 loyalty 5.52 support 5.48

Comments (survey2019)

[...] has developed a inhouse middleware that is used to manage Member accounts and connect with various applications. Less than 50$% of our active members borrow physical material. As such the ILS is only one of several tools and applications. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

eBooks are managed by MARC record delivery via OCLC Collection Management rather than SirsiDynix's eRC. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Sirsi/Dynix has been very helpful over the years. They have an active user support group and Client Care responds quickly to update glitches. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Alma/Primo may become an option through the [...] in the next few years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I am frustrated by my vendor who wants to charge us for every new upgrade. Most public libraries have status quo budgets (if they are lucky) and cannot ford the latest bells & whistles. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our contract for Sirsi Symphony and Enterprise ends at the end of 2020. We are seriously considering other ILS and have been approved to do an RFP. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

as a member of a consortium, GPL doesn't interact directly with the ILS vendor. Presumably it would be consortium staff who could better answer questions about the vendor and the quality of its service. I assume you send a survey to the consortium, to (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The Tech people in the consortium take care of any problems that arise and contact Sirsi. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are in the beginning stages of looking at the LSP landscape. While we are interested in FOLIO, we realize it may be some time before it is ready. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

While the company's vision is focused on the development of BLUE Cloud products, I am very pleased to see the continued development of the legacy Symphony ILS. It's nice to see the growth of Symphony while a fully functional BLUECloud ILS is developed. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We just moved to SAAS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

The primary reason for the low rating is the extremely sluggish development cycle of their products, in particular their recent uppgrades to Enterprise to be mobile friend;y (not actually responive) taking over 4 years to complete. Their development of their BlueCloud Suite is still in open development, and has not reached the capacity to replace their older machine installed software. I don't see this happening in my lifetime. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

As a small library, we are concerned about the real value and cost for discovery services. It is an expensive service and we can't really measure the true value because vendors won't cooperate with each other. Not every digital item can truly be discovered in our resources. They like the convenience but there are issues. Problems: 1) parameter defaults can be set too broadly finding resources not actually owned or accessed through our library. 2) Students aren't paying attention to where the item is coming from. They need to slow down and not rush their skimming. 3) Librarians have noticed that result sets from databases differ from results sets by the same database in the Discovery Service. The database results are often better than the Discovery Service. Librarians have no real clue how the algorithms work for the the database or Discovery Service.. 4) When librarians help patrons and perform the same search, neither result for either party is the same. 5) Students will not have a Discovery Service when they graduate. What will they do then? They need to be familiar with databases within their field of study. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The main problem is a very poor search function for finding out about items that are in stock (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

We love our ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

SaaS since 2013, excellent service, no downtime experienced. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

SirsiDynix is often willing to accommodate our requests for bespoke services, so much so that we often consider SirsiDynix more of a partner than a vendor in projects. Their support and training platforms are among the best I have seen. It's easy to keep track of support requests and trace them to related enhancement requests. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Symphony seems to be years behind it's competitors. It is awkward, lacks features found in other ILSs and its BlueCloud suite isn't very useful to larger library systems. On the plus side the staff are knowledgeable and timely. But that isn't enough to balance out the antiquity of the system. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)

SirsiDynix seem customer-oriented and competent from management on down. We're okay with the current version of the ILS but also hopeful that the next generation version they're working on will be a significant improvement in usability and versatility. We've researched open-source systems and concluded they don't have the features we need, and that there's not sufficient organization for those systems to make ongoing, systematic progress in the way proprietary vendors do. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Workflows/Enterprise enhancements, and BlueCloud apps are built on a series of promises that are always underdeveloped and late.Since the implementation in 2017, not one product has been delivered on time and without bugs. I can't say enough how disappointed I am with the company and its products. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

The slow development of a fully functional BLUECloud client , is frustrating and disappointing. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our impression of SirsiDynix is they appear to be stalled out on releasing finished modules of their Blue Cloud line. They also appear to not have a strategy for integrating developing initiatives like Bibframe into their offerings. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Discovery Solution: Custom Global for everything plus special focus discovery: Avalon (Samvera), for AV; Libra (Samvera Scholarly Communication); Samvera Hyku for Publishing; GeoBlacklight for GIS; ArchiveSpace for manuscripts; Dataverse for research data; ArchiveIT for at risk websites; HathiTrust for monographs; SharedShelf/ArtStor ; DPLA for Digital Virginia; (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Symphony's functionality is in many ways beyond our needs: we're a simple library with a small-ish collection and low circulation. That said, we'd rather have something that exceeds our needs than something that doesn't adequately meet them. SirsiDynix support was very responsive when we had an urgent issue with the ILS this year, diagnosing and resolving the problem quickly. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The library is part of a consortium. Our current contract has 3 1/2 more years. We have many issues with Symphony. We have one person dedicated to handling all ILS issues. She feels that customer support is very good overall, however, she has been given to understand that SirsiDynix is phasing out continued improvements to Symphony and focusing on their Discovery Interface, Enterprise. We are investigating and comparing systems in anticipation of contract renewal in 3 1/2 years. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are not that happy with our current ILS but we have not seen many other options that would justify a migration. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Development at SirsiDinosaurs proceeds at a glacial pace. Following a series of missed release deadlines, they obfuscated these delays with a change in their versioning. They also changed their road map to offer vague timelines without any reference to what will be included in an upcoming release. The WorkFlows client (it's 2019 and most of their customers still have to use a desktop client?!) has not changed much over the past decade. BLUEcloud Circulation and Cataloging are still missing core functionality and have slow performance, rendering them unusable. The company finally released a mobile-friendly Enterprise catalogue this summer (that's not even truly responsive), even though competitors have had this for well over 5 years. New customers should expect the product never to change much and to have to wait at least 5 years to have features that competitors implement. At this point, the product is seriously even lagging behind open source options such as Koha. There are really no good reason to pick them over an open source solution if your library is comfortable with innovation. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 0)

The ILS vendor field is very narrow, so even if we are dissatisfied there are not lot of affordable options. There are not a lot of options that work really well for large multi-type consortia. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

The development of Blue Cloud as the replacement for staff access to the LMS is very slow. SirsiDynix need to focus on their main product not trying to branch out into other flashy add-ons. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

While we would prefer not to use open source at this time, we're extremely satisfied with our consortium and the support we get at that level, so probably wouldn't leave the consortium. The number of items in our collection is dramatically increased because I used a different method for counting it, which now includes individual records for shared electronic resources, including ebooks. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Have seen the product improve from year-end to year-end, but within the year is introduce a major problem that took to long to resolve. I am giving them a high score because they eventually resolved the problem (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] is a consortium of local public and private K-12 schools. We provide library automation services to all of our member school districts. We serve approximately 100 locations, 50,000 students and teachers. Our member school districts use us as tier 1 and 2 support for library auotmation. We in turn use [...] as tier 3 support, and INFOhio can escalate issues to SirsiDynix. We are currently using Symphony and WorkFlows while transitioning to BLUEcloud. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)

This system is not have intuitive to [...] patrons or employees. In our experience with customer service, we have had difficulties obtaining knowledgeable service representatives to help meet our needs in a timely manner. We are in the process of looking for a new system to migrate to in 2021. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

En el mes de julio se actualizó la versión del sistema Symphony y actualmente se está trabajando en la interfaz de BlueCloud para todo lo relacionado con Catalogación y Circulación con todas las facilidades que esto ofrece para los usuarios y para el personal en forma ubicua (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Not sure about vendors for new ILS (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

SirsiDynix's customer base is mostly public libraries. Though Academic Reserves module is operational, there are features that would make it more useful. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

SirsiDynix has excellent customer support. Unfortunately, when we were sold our system three years ago, our sales rep promised access to their BLUECloud suite of products at go-live. Those products are still a few years away from being usable in production, and are being developed very slowly. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Symphony seems to be the best product on the market relative to its cost, but it leaves much to be desired, particularly the WorkFlows staff client which remains buggy and obtuse to this day. The company is addressing this by developing the browser based BlueCloud, but it isn't far along enough for implementation by most libraries in our consortium. The eLibrary OPAC is garbage and the newer Enterprise OPAC has a few concerning flaws. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Support is not great, but could be worse. Seems like the support team at Sirsi Dynix UK are all quite new and there seems to be a lot of misinterpretation that delays solutions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

As a member of a consortium, we don't have much say over implementing fixes or tweaking our discovery products (such as Enterprise). I know that things could work better, but the consortium offices are busy and they are not on the front lines with us, so they don't have much incentive to fix things that bother us. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)

We are a multi-type library consortium using the system. Our Admin is at the State Library. Every time we go out for an RFP there is not another system that can handle the diversity of needs the [...] has. Until something is developed that is as robust as SIRSI we will not be changing. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Library catalogs need to be reinvented. The structure of standard bibliographic records is no longer functional. Usability is primarily about browsing not single item searches. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are mostly satisfied with the product we have. The main issue is that we are unable to upgrade to a better online catalog due to cost. The company discontinued developing the catalog that would have been covered under the cost of our maintenance fee. This would have provided a more up-to-date online catalog for our library. The software fits our workflow fairly well. There are some modifications that we would like to do, but it would cost to have the company implement/make the changes needed. Overall we are able to make things work, the software is pretty customizable in relation to properties, reports, etc. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are part of the [...] and share our ILS & Discovery Service with 4 other libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

At some point in the next version of the survey, the term ILS might need to be replaced with a library services platform. The SirsiDynix software now has a large component of its services residing in BLUEcloud. For example, the BLUEcloud eResource Central is completely independent of the Symphony ILS. Over the next year, the BLUEcloud Circulation, Cataloging, and Acquisitions may be adopted by our library consortium once the functionality reaches the critical areas to allow us to leave the Java WorkFlows client used for Symphony. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our state academic library consortium, [...] , put out a request for information a couple of years ago when our SIRSI contract was nearing an end. We did review the current ILS products available from other vendors (in person demos), but chose to stay with SIRSI for a five year contract due to few added benefits to migrating to other vendors vs. the hassle and major undertaking of migrating to another vendor. Right now, SIRSI and its Blue Cloud/Symphony products work for us. As a consortium, we moved to the cloud version instead of running local servers a few years ago. Without the [...] consortium, I don't know what we would use as our ILS. [...] makes it easy for us as a small library to have a lot of products and services. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We're mostly satisfied with SirsiDynix. I've been pretty happy with Enterprise as a catalog system. It's way more flexible than E-library or EDS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sirsi is very slow to change and does not keep up with current technology expectations or trends for both staff and public facing products. Getting reports and data is unnecessarily cumbersome. When we're competing with Amazon for front-end search, our sites need to be much more nimble and adaptable. Some reports we run are not as customizable as I'd like. I use the List Purchase Alerts New report weekly. It would be a more efficient use of my time if I could have the suspended holds not counted in the report and all items with no current copies (but copies on order) not appear on the report. It would also be beneficial if the DVDs could have a separate report. Integration of ebook and eaudio records is not complete. [The customer services consultant] has been responsive to issues raised [and] actively works to iron out issues. Libraries must have the staffing capacity and knowledge base to develop and maintain an open source ILS customized to suit their needs. If the staffing is not available, funds must be found to hire consultants or vendors to develop, migrate, and launch the open source ILS. It is even more important to make sure there are staff/vendors available to update, maintain, and improve this customized system on a regular basis so Librarians and customer's requirements and requests are evaluated and completed. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are not using the online (cloud) system, but an older version that is runs on a server. I have used several different ILS systems, and Sirsi is the least user-friendly and clunky of the lot. The report function is terrible unless you pay for the additional application. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Excellent customer support in APAC region. Migrated to a hosted solution in May 2019, extremely happy with project and results of migration. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

The [...] Libraries is currently migrating to Ex Libris' Alma, Primo and Leganto products. Our expected Go Live date is at the beginning of August 2020. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

It takes a lot of lobbying before basic improvements/enhancements are implemented. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

As the ILS Administrator, I'm very satisfied with Symphony. Some points were docked for the fact that there are some libraries in the consortium that are not happy with it. Particularly the e-Library catalog interface (we also demoed Enterprise and they hated that too. Currently, we are looking at BiblioCore for a catalog replacement). However, overall, they are happy with the functionality of the system's backend. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

[...] physical library collection was decommissioned in 2016/2017 and this means that the current ILS is largely superfluous to our needs (the answers above reflect this). It is unlikely that we will seek an alternative ILS when the SirsiDynix service contract expires in 2020. We are however looking into an alternative means of hosting our corporate memory archive - this will likely involve a combination of SharePoint Online and our existing EDRMS - Micro Focus Content Manager. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

The library has just signed a new contract with SirsiDynix after a tender process. SirsiDynix were able to meet the needs of the consortia better than the other tenders. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Symphony Workflows is not aesthetically pleasing. It looks a bit dated. When you do searches inside of Workflows often times it does not show digital materials if you get them via a 3rd party such as Hoopla or Overdrive. The result of this is that circulation staff must have an Internet Browser open with the Enterprise website to search for those materials. Also, there are issues when searching for materials inside of Workflows. You have to be very specific about word choice and the order in which you enter terms to search. It is not very flexible, and does not handle error correction. You must be precise. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Searching could be better, but I've read the SirsiDynix product roadmap and it is something they are actively working on. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

I wish Workflows search had more granularity. Searching for Stephen King's It is almost impossible. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Workflows is missing a tool. Sometimes older people checkout over 100 books a month. They read so many books that it is difficult for them to keep track whether they have read a specific book but there is no tool for this. We've put in a request for this type of tool before. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Holds, they can be very convoluted. This is a task that happens multiple times per day, and you would think there would be a really easy tool for searching, trapping, and identifying an item as missing, but it is not so great at this. Overall Workflows is a good product from a good company and I like it. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Maybe the cataloging could be better within the system. Often times we physically have an item in our hands, and we cannot find it in Workflows. This causes all of our work to slow down, because you are trying to figure out how to find it. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I feel like you have to use the Enterprise website and Workflows in conjunction just to be able to do your job. Workflows doesn't show ebooks that we get from 3rd party services. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Workflows has some odd quirks. You have to use one tool to search for a patron. Then exit out of that you need to use another tool to actually open the patron account and modify their address or email or PIN. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Electronic resources left blank, because they are not managed in the ILS. Memory about implementation of our current ILS is fuzzy, because it was so long ago. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Note Year circulation 354. Number of Students enrolled 49 (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The customer support, consulting services and related teams at SirsiDynix are absolutely the best to work with. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

our main frustration revolves around slow deployment of bluecloud products. We have a few of the products in use but many do not have all of the functions needed. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Symphony is a mature ILS that suits our needs. EDS has been functioning well with the exception that ProQuest products are not well incorporated. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We'd like to migrate to a new LSP, but funding won't be available for at least 3 years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Vendor has been slow in developing a browser-based interface for staff use which is feature-equivalent with the existing installed client software. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Would like to see [...] take initiative regarding open source implementation to help libraries that are unable to do it themselves, or offer state operated system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The current Enterprise interface does not replicate the functionality of its previous elibrary online catalog. SIRSI is adding boolean and shelf browsing features to Enterprise that will improve some of the search issues users experience when searching for physical items in our library. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Individual libraries are not subject to direct contact with the vendor (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are currently on Symphony and the product is simply old technology. While BlueCloud has come a long way, it still has a long, long way to come before it can be used. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)

As a member of a consortia, I don't really feel qualified to answer some of the questions. Just going by how I feel the consortia leader feels about the company. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have just completed a lengthy process of evaluating automation systems and chose to sign a new contract with Sirsi that includes improvements and features developed since we signed our contract with them in 2011. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

ILS systems lag far behind products that are available to other industries, such as the medical and restaurant industries. I go to a restaurant and see the waitress or waiter enter my order and it is transmitted to the kitchen. This is via a touch screen and is very quick and appears intuitive. My doctor’s office can write a prescription and transmit it to my preferred pharmacy while I am sitting in the office. ILS systems lack this level of sophistication. Some of this is due to the library field. We insist on cataloging the city of publication but the series and the number in the series are data that must be added or not added depending on the library, cataloger, or consortium. Historically the city of publication was important but today multinational companies buy and sell imprints and publishers often so the city of publication isn’t relevant. We have also allowed the Library of Congress hegemony over our subject headings and proprietary library classification systems. The Library of Congress is an agency of the legislative branch of the U.S. government, yet they control whether a person in the country, who has not entered through legal means, is an undocumented worker or an illegal alien in our subject headings. ILS systems can only reflect the information that libraries have or request. The consolidation of the industry is a concern because we are losing competition and innovation with these acquisitions. ILS systems are technology companies competing with Google, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft for talent. Since there are six times more restaurants in the county than libraries we are a smaller market and are therefore relegated to less up to date systems. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Very happy with our move to a managed service - we seem to be getting good support from them. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

WF is very robust with many features however it is cumbersome to use. This product can improve in usability for staff as well as updated discovery layers. Our consortium contact is excellent and has helped us to navigate and make the most of this product. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sirsi is stuck. Blue Cloud products are unusable in a consortium. Things that were first shown and promised in 2013 still aren't usable. We are paying a lot for development that never seems to get anywhere. There are a lot of individual Sirsi employees who are hugely helpful, honest and that we are very attached to. But the lack of development, focus on buzzwords rather than product and decreasing help from their help desk have driven us to look elsewhere. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)

Night and day difference in customer support compared to previous vendor. Interface too cumbersome and the web-based tools lag, but happy we made the switch. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have 2 proprietary systems; one, we have had since the beginning of time and the other, is more recent to handle electronic resources. Our issue is we lack the man power to capitalize and utilize all the features due to the difficulty in making two different systems integrate successfully. (Library type: Special; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are happy to leave most of the work of maintaining our ILS to [...] , which manages our consortium. It means we do have relatively little choice in what ILS is used, but it is well worth giving up a little autonomy not to have to deal with it ourselves. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Huge advantage and cost savings being part of the [...] consortium (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

While there are always things that could be better, I am pretty happy with the functionality of our ILS, and the support provided by the vendor. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

The Symphony ILS is adequate for a large urban public libraries print materials. The vendor needs to get their BlueCloud offerings stable and get legacy systems switched on to it because the workflows client is really starting to show its age as front line service tool. The web services need more robust documentation so that systems can be integrated more easily, it appears there are reasonable read capabilities but it is unclear why this isn't adopted by more 3rd party content vendors for authentication, and SIP2 and Ezproxy solutions are still favored. The SirsDynix support portal works well for the most part and support staff have been good when they are needed. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We've had a couple of fee discrepancies; the latest being ironed out now. A change was made to one of our categories by one of their techs without my approval that caused an entire type of material to stop checking out properly. That was frustrating (I got blamed for it). Overall, the products are far superior to what we used to use, and so is the support. We still feel that Innovative products have little to offer public libraries and are (overall) pleased with SirsiDynix. Costs are always a concern, however, and so we're considering open source again when our contract expires. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are disappointed that the products that we were excited about, and that they sold us on - BlueCloud Circulation, and BlueCloud Cataloging - are not further along in production than they are today. It's been years and they still don't have some basic circulation functionality in place. They have too many products to support, and apparently are having to divert resources to develop new products to sell. Symphony Cataloging has much less functionality than our old ILS. We have to rely on MarcEdit to process most of our updates. Symphony standard reports are clunky and inadequate. Reports that should be standard have to be paid for separately. We are lucky to have BlueCloud Analytics at our library, or analyzing our operations & usage would be impossible. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

SIGB requiere de mucho conocimiento y experiencia para realizar una correcta configuración y administración; por lo tanto el criterio de usabilidad o relacionado es bajo. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

collection= print + ebooks (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The current system is not forward thinking. The library cannot catalog non-Romanized languages. Not seeing great functionality and Blue Cloud is still in the works. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

[...] >>How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? Cannot answer this as we are dependent on the support staff employed by the [...] consortium to handle any support issues to do with the LMS. We are not satisfied with the functionality of Symphony/Workflows in our consortial environment and as the number of libraries joining the [...] consortium grows, we have concern about their resources to support these libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

We recently discussed requesting information from other ILS vendors. When discussed with SirsiDynix they agreed to meet a number of our requirements and offered a good deal on a contract extension for three additional years (which we can void if they don't meet the requirements we agreed to). A big issue is the tendency of SirsiDynix to over-promise and under-deliver and their inability to meet release dates. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our current vendor has a good, stable product that is responsive to our requests and awesome people. That puts them over the top for us. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Wish soon its BlueCloud package get ready to meet needs of public libraries, especially Enterprise and eRC, etc. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

While we are not actively considering migrating to another system, the end of the current contract is in a little over a year, so we will be looking at options ranging from full tender to renewing the current system for a few more years. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have found SirsiDynix to be exceptionally responsive to customer input. We are also impressed with the customer collaboration in developing the new BLUEcloud suite of software. Also, we've been very pleased and grateful for the way their capital venturist (ICV) owners have encouraged SirsiDynix to branch out and expand their product line beyond a simple ILS and develop a more robust LSP. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

The Symphony ILS is not truly what is needed in our special library. That being said, we have always had good responses and relationship with SirsiDynix, and have been able to work around the lack of flexibility for our "special" library needs. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

NA should be available for questions that are not applicable to those library's that filter questions through a consortium. The results of the survey are skewed, because I had to assign numerical value to questions I should have no opinion on since the consortium takes care of issues. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The current ILS is desktop based and clunky compared to other products currently available and while the vendor is moving towards providing a web-based product it is hard to say how long it will take for them to complete it and in essence our consortium is functioning as beta testers for them during this process. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

I scored SirsiDynix low in managing our electronic resources because we don't use Sirsi with our electronic ones (with a few individual electronic journal titles). We might consider an Open Source system if one were fully formed and turn key. We looked into Koha many years ago but we're small and without a dedicated IT person it would not work for us. When one is developed that is as robust and functional as what we have we might look at the issue again. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The SirsiDynix Customer Service portal is the best of all vendors we work with. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We would prefer that more development take place within the Symphony Outreach module. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

I am satisfied with support and new product roll-outs. I am disappointed in the way ILS companies have responded to user behavior and technology changes. Certain things should be simple and standard such as account related issues, online payment of various services, non-traditional material management (acquisition, cataloging and circulation), unlimited SMS, linked-in data capability to name just a few. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Public version of the catalog is not very ADA accessible. You have to click on a separate link (like "back door" access) to get to the "accessible" version. The cursor is in the search box, so a screen reader would have to read through the whole page and back up to the top again to even find the link to the accessible version. When you run both versions of the catalog page through an accessibility checker, the accessible version finds more errors than the regular version! Reports and inventory are not accurate. Clunky interface. Awful formatting for reports. The only reason we used this ILS is because it is forced upon us by our consortium. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)

The implementation period was rocky and we are still sorting out issues that arose from the migration. However, those issues are becoming less frequent over time. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are part of a statewide consortium that includes school, public, special, and a few academic libraries. Our needs are varied but the consortium allows the many small libraries in our state access to ILS they otherwise couldn't afford and specialized staff that maintain the ILS. This does give individual libraries less of a say in which company and product we use. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are migrating to Alma/Primo. I answered this survey based on the existing ILS. The number of items in our collection is based on physical items. I have not worked with the support department for SirsiDynix, so I provided neutral feedback, I would rather have selected "N/A" if possible. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)

I am the new Director for the library and moved here from a library that was using a cloud based system. I have found Symphony to be outdated, clunky, hard to learn, hard to maintain, and difficult all around. After numerous times reaching out to customer support for hands on training, it wasn't until I responded negatively to a survey that anyone offered help. Even after I was given assistance, the attitude of the customer service person was one of I should already know how to use it and it's my fault that I do not. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

We work within the [...] consortium in [...] and have access to 58 community college library collections. If we do not have an item, we can then search and request from one of the other libraries in the system. We also use OCLC databases to find books that are not found in the CCLINC system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

From a customer's perspective, it was another year of growing pains for SirsiDynix. Upgrades and bug fixes for some products seem to take a long time. We're still waiting for one bug fix that was promised a year ago, on a very basic function that patrons expect to work. On the positive side, they are developing some great products and features. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Just interested to see what FOLIO has to offer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

2019 we went back out to tender for the LMS and chose SirsiDynix. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

I answered the survey under [...] . (Library type: Public; collection size: very small)

We use resourcemate so this is na (Library type: Public; collection size: small)

It is almost impossible to get a change or improvement to software. We are a small player (albeit a Consortium of 39 Councils) in [...] and do not have any say in features which will be selected for research and developemnt. We would like the general search improved. Currently it searches 5 fields in the bibliographic record, not all fields as we were led to believe. Frustrating. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

An issue we have is with reports interface and the ability to format them the way we would like. To format them currently you require to use API which as a very small authority is something we don't have the ability to use. the only other option id to purchase the analytics software which is another expense we currently couldn't afford. the only other min issue is that the OPAC (Enterprise) still doesn't seem to be able to adapt fully to accommodate mobile devices and it looks like many library services have to use skilled web developers to develop code as a work around. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

El sistema es muy completo, prácticamente se pueden resolver todos los requerimientos de la biblioteca, sin embargo es muy complejo a la hora de configurar algo, los manuales están algo desactualizados y en varios casos siguiendo los pasos descritos en el manual, no logramos configurar correctamente, afortunadamente el servicio de soporte es muy bueno y permite finalmente resolver los inconvenientes. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have had good success with the Sirsi support portal. Everyone I have worked with works hard to resolve the issue or place it in JIRA. We have been a customer for 16 years. I would like to see some improvements in different aspects of the ILS and those are in the queue for consideration. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Basic module functionality on the back end has been somewhat improved since migration. Expectations of front end discovery layer, integration with EDS and the BLUEcloud campus suite have been disappointing to date. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

The only reason for the decline in customer support is due to the cuts to the [...] . The customer service we receive is very good, just a bit slower than it used to be due to cuts in jobs. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our libraries have been associated with SirsiDynix since 1999. The company has grown larger over time and is offering more products or modules every year. The users conference will be near SirsiDynix headquarters so it will be interesting to visit the home office. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our satisfaction is higher for our ILS (decades old) than for our discovery layer (less than ten years old). EBSCO needs to be more assertive about fixing problems and updating their platform. We have open tickets about basic and fundamental problems that have lingered for years. At this point it is more likely that problems with our discovery service will drive us into Alma's warm embrace, than problems with Symphony, which is old and awkward but gets the job done with a bit of elbow grease. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We'd like easier to use reporting and statistic retrieval. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We need more customization of the LMS based upon different needs and future trends. Any requests for custom work are expensive and should be standard based upon a lot of libraries requesting the same thing and the needs of today. Access to APIs are to only supported vendors. Would like to have other systems be able to connect via APIs to the LMS, not just those the vendor allows. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

The product is overall a good ILS - from a personal searching viewpoint the public searching interface (Enterprise) and the way results display could be improved as I think some of the public finding it confusing when looking at search results. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

ILS is functional, but old and could be better. It's good for sharing items with IU Libraries, but lacks integration with resource sharing tools. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

The eRC product is great for managing larger sourced e-resources. We aren't considering Hoopla at least until they can integrate into this platform. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We moved from a stand alone Symphony to a consortium called [...] . They use Enterprise. We are very pleased with the migration and support from [...] in this effort. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

The current ILS is working well. When problems or issues arise, we have someone in-house that troubleshoots them. If they are beyond the reach of this person, we contact the ILS vendor directly, who has addressed the problem(s) quickly and satisfactory. Stating this, however, there is always interest in seeking open source options, specifically if they will secure a larger audience without losing efficiency and within budget constraints. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Cost is a major factor in our decision to consider migrating to another system. SirsiDynix provides lots of functionality but every feature comes at an additional cost. It feels to me as a customer that they are constantly tacking on new functionality to aging architecture with the result that it's increasingly cumbersome. I wonder if a product created for, rather than adapted to, current technology workflows and access would be more flexible and user-friendly. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

SirsiDynix appears to focus more on products that can be sold as additional or upgraded products, rather than fixing functionality in core products. We've been hearing about BlueCloud products for the past 9 - 10 years, but the functionality apparently isn't there to roll out for a large consortium, such as [...]. Open source options seem to more closely align with ethics and philosophy of public libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Symphony is old and clunky, the vendor has been taking years to roll out modern new products. The product was selected in 2015 due to the imminent release of Blue Cloud products, which has not happened. The customer service support team are wonderful - always helpful, prompt with their solutions. We receive nearly 24/7 hour service due to the vendor maintaining and overnight tea in the US to service Australasia customers. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Symphony is a decent product but has limitations in that it is built on 30-yr old technology. it works well for physical books but less so for ebooks. The vendor is attempting to rectify that through it's BLUECloud offerings but there is still some development needed there. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Vendor is quite willing to partner with us on the enhancement of the system. We are often involved in piloting new features to help refine them prior to general release. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

The system lacks discovery layers. It is also old and not very dynamic. Probably, in 2.5 years when the contract is over, we would shift to something else more modern and suitable for the size of our library. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

ILS