Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for WorldShare Management Services

Statistics according to type and size categories

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

2019 WorldShare Management Services Responses by Sector
WorldShare Management ServicesallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1556.82 687.24406.50105.4050131
ILSFunctionality1536.75 687.13386.34105.4050131
PrintFunctionality1557.10 687.41407.00106.4050131
ElectronicFunctionality1546.75 687.16406.38106.4050031
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1557.08 687.35407.08106.0050131
CompanyLoyalty1526.77 667.24396.67105.4050131



2019 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction155 2 5 6 9 30 52 34 17 76.827
ILS Functionality153 2 8 5 10 31 46 33 18 76.757
Print Functionality155 2 4 5 13 19 39 44 29 87.107
Electronic Functionality154 4 4 2 22 31 31 42 18 86.757
Company Satisfaction155 1 3 6 7 4 18 43 49 24 87.037
Support Satisfaction155 1 2 3 6 4 6 20 32 47 34 87.088
Support Improvement153 2 5 13 40 19 32 25 17 56.296
Company Loyalty152 5 4 5 3 6 12 12 28 39 38 86.778
Open Source Interest153 48 19 24 10 17 14 6 8 3 4 02.532

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS156 74.49%
Considering new Interface156 106.41%
System Installed on time?156 14492.31%

Average Collection size: 417961

TypeCount
Public6
Academic121
School3
Consortium1
Special9

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00056
[3] 100,001-250,00038
[4] 250,001-1,000,00039
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00013
[6] over 10,000,0010



2018 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction109 2 3 1 6 9 21 36 22 9 76.567
ILS Functionality109 1 1 1 2 7 14 22 29 20 12 76.517
Print Functionality109 2 1 2 2 6 19 24 33 20 87.107
Electronic Functionality109 2 4 2 7 9 18 37 19 11 76.497
Company Satisfaction107 1 2 4 5 8 13 29 29 16 76.837
Support Satisfaction106 2 1 4 7 8 15 31 24 14 76.697
Support Improvement106 1 1 3 17 32 11 18 16 7 55.885
Company Loyalty107 3 3 4 3 7 11 12 19 23 22 86.457
Open Source Interest108 33 18 14 7 7 14 6 4 3 2 02.512

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS109 1110.09%
Considering new Interface109 98.26%
System Installed on time?109 10495.41%

Average Collection size: 384087

TypeCount
Public4
Academic83
School0
Consortium1
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00040
[3] 100,001-250,00029
[4] 250,001-1,000,00027
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0009
[6] over 10,000,0010



2017 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction140 2 1 2 3 6 12 34 45 23 12 76.497
ILS Functionality140 2 1 3 4 4 18 25 38 36 9 76.507
Print Functionality138 1 2 4 6 12 11 34 42 26 87.067
Electronic Functionality137 2 1 4 2 9 10 27 38 30 14 76.537
Company Satisfaction139 2 1 2 3 3 14 26 36 28 24 76.797
Support Satisfaction140 3 1 3 3 2 15 23 35 33 22 76.747
Support Improvement137 4 2 4 16 32 24 18 23 14 55.996
Company Loyalty136 6 3 4 5 3 19 12 26 26 32 96.497
Open Source Interest139 54 18 21 10 10 13 3 2 2 6 02.141

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS142 107.04%
Considering new Interface142 96.34%
System Installed on time?142 12789.44%

Average Collection size: 367340

TypeCount
Public4
Academic111
School2
Consortium2
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00049
[3] 100,001-250,00034
[4] 250,001-1,000,00043
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00010
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction133 2 1 3 5 4 9 20 40 33 16 76.707
ILS Functionality133 1 2 4 5 5 11 18 43 34 10 76.557
Print Functionality134 1 2 1 1 8 20 30 50 21 87.258
Electronic Functionality132 3 2 2 7 6 12 18 35 38 9 86.437
Company Satisfaction134 1 5 3 4 7 20 25 43 26 87.048
Support Satisfaction133 1 2 5 2 3 7 17 29 43 24 86.998
Support Improvement127 2 1 6 7 29 11 17 23 31 96.617
Company Loyalty132 7 2 4 1 4 13 7 19 32 43 96.918
Open Source Interest131 55 24 21 6 4 8 7 2 1 3 01.761

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS134 85.97%
Considering new Interface134 85.97%
System Installed on time?134 12694.03%

Average Collection size: 352782

TypeCount
Public4
Academic102
School1
Consortium1
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,00049
[3] 100,001-250,00034
[4] 250,001-1,000,00039
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0008
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction94 2 1 2 10 12 28 30 9 86.947
ILS Functionality94 2 2 3 7 9 19 23 20 9 76.437
Print Functionality94 2 1 8 14 24 29 16 87.177
Electronic Functionality93 3 1 1 6 11 15 20 29 7 86.587
Company Satisfaction94 2 1 3 3 12 20 34 19 87.318
Support Satisfaction93 3 1 6 3 14 17 31 18 87.088
Support Improvement89 1 2 9 18 14 16 14 15 56.427
Company Loyalty92 2 1 1 4 5 4 6 17 22 30 97.138
Open Source Interest92 45 17 14 2 1 5 3 2 3 01.511

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS95 33.16%
Considering new Interface95 44.21%
System Installed on time?95 8993.68%

Average Collection size: 424304

TypeCount
Public2
Academic75
School1
Consortium1
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00024
[3] 100,001-250,00031
[4] 250,001-1,000,00022
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00010
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction72 1 1 2 1 3 10 28 22 4 76.887
ILS Functionality71 1 2 3 8 12 31 11 3 76.517
Print Functionality70 1 1 1 4 8 15 33 7 87.218
Electronic Functionality70 1 1 1 7 10 20 23 7 86.937
Company Satisfaction71 1 2 1 1 6 15 34 11 87.398
Support Satisfaction71 2 1 3 8 19 18 20 97.448
Support Improvement69 2 2 13 9 14 17 12 86.867
Company Loyalty73 1 1 1 2 1 4 15 23 25 97.598
Open Source Interest71 36 15 3 9 4 1 2 1 01.280

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS74 34.05%
Considering new Interface74 68.11%
System Installed on time?74 6689.19%

Average Collection size: 444490

TypeCount
Public4
Academic56
School1
Consortium1
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00024
[3] 100,001-250,00018
[4] 250,001-1,000,00013
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0008
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction31 2 1 5 2 10 6 5 76.777
ILS Functionality31 3 3 2 4 5 8 3 3 75.816
Print Functionality30 1 1 2 4 2 6 8 6 86.807
Electronic Functionality31 1 2 4 2 1 7 8 6 86.687
Company Satisfaction30 1 5 3 3 8 10 97.378
Support Satisfaction31 1 1 4 4 7 7 7 77.007
Support Improvement31 1 10 3 4 7 6 56.777
Company Loyalty30 1 1 1 4 1 2 7 13 97.338
Open Source Interest30 15 3 1 4 2 4 1 01.701

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS32 13.13%
Considering new Interface32 13.13%
System Installed on time?32 2475.00%

Average Collection size: 260399

TypeCount
Public2
Academic25
School1
Consortium0
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,0005
[3] 100,001-250,00013
[4] 250,001-1,000,0006
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0002
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction21 1 1 2 1 2 7 6 1 76.387
ILS Functionality21 2 2 1 4 4 5 1 2 75.486
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction21 2 1 1 1 1 2 8 5 86.768
Support Satisfaction21 2 3 1 1 4 3 7 96.627
Support Improvement20 1 1 2 2 1 5 2 6 96.707
Company Loyalty21 2 1 1 4 5 8 96.958
Open Source Interest21 4 6 3 2 1 3 1 1 12.522

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS22 00.00%
Considering new Interface22 00.00%
System Installed on time?22 1777.27%

Average Collection size: 316875

TypeCount
Public0
Academic21
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0006
[3] 100,001-250,0009
[4] 250,001-1,000,0004
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction10 2 4 3 1 77.107
ILS Functionality10 1 1 2 2 3 1 75.205
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction10 1 2 1 6 98.209
Support Satisfaction10 1 1 3 5 98.209
Support Improvement9 2 1 2 4 97.568
Company Loyalty10 1 1 3 5 98.009
Open Source Interest10 5 3 2 00.701

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS10 00.00%
Considering new Interface10 00.00%
System Installed on time?10 990.00%

Average Collection size: 392232

TypeCount
Public0
Academic9
School0
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0002
[3] 100,001-250,0003
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010


0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2010

0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2009

0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2008

0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2007

2019 : gen: 6.82 company 7.03 loyalty 6.77 support 7.08

2018 : gen: 6.56 company 6.83 loyalty 6.45 support 6.69

2017 : gen: 6.49 company 6.79 loyalty 6.49 support 6.74

2016 : gen: 6.70 company 7.04 loyalty 6.91 support 6.99

2015 : gen: 6.94 company 7.31 loyalty 7.13 support 7.08

2014 : gen: 6.88 company 7.39 loyalty 7.59 support 7.44

2013 : gen: 6.77 company 7.37 loyalty 7.33 support 7.00

2012 : gen: 6.38 company 6.76 loyalty 6.95 support 6.62

2011 : gen: 7.10 company 8.20 loyalty 8.00 support 8.20

Comments (survey2019)

The OCLC and Woldshare user community is strong, active, and very useful. That community is a major part of why Worldshare works well as an ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The main areas that are lacking in WMS are reserves, which is dealt with only in the online catalog, Discovery, and not in the WMS staff interface; and temporary locations, which are not searchable in Discovery. There are also limited options for customizing the Discovery interface. That said, this product has gotten better over the 1.5 years I've been here, with fewer slow times or glitches. Their customer service tends to be very helpful and usually pretty quick. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

System has had a very stable year vs. problems in Fall 2017; they increased the capacity.. Vendor offers frequent updates, many based on customer requests, which has been helpful. Discovery system has had major updates as well, with more in the pipeline. Overall, a very easy to use system, which is also easy to configure. It is also far less expensive to acquire and maintain vs. many of the other ILS systems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We implemented OCLC's WorldShare Management this year. For the most part, it handles our needs very well, although we wish that the report module was more robust (one needs to subscribe the more sophisticated version). WorldCat Discovery has caused frequent frustration and disappointment. Search results can be confusing and inaccurate. Links to electronic items don't always resolve correctly, leading users to believe our library does not have access to an article (e.g.) when we do, or vice versa. OCLC is not able to deal with embargoed electronic journal holdings, leading to confusion. OCLCSupport is sometimes aware that there's an ongoing problem, sometimes not. I believe it all makes our library look bad. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We had a smooth transition to our new vendor on time. Customer support is also good, better than expected. Our patrons seem happy with the discovery interface and appreciate easy single sign on access to electronic resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Question 3: ...managing your library's print resources? : the ability to move a local holding record from one system shelving location to another is very limited. In many cases we have to delete the item line from one location and copy it to another. To complete the process often takes cataloger intervention. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are generally pretty happy with our ILS. We are slightly less happy with the accompanying discovery service, though I think our frustration (poor relevancy, duplication, inability to get content from competing vendors) has more to do with discovery in general than the particular product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

One issue with WMS is that e-resource management, specifically the collections is not hands off. Bad connection/metadata issues pop up regularly. While the monthly releases are mostly improvements, it is quite a lot to keep up with. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The figure in "Approximate number of items..." is for physical items only. If you include electronic holdings, the number rises to 1,175,692. I wasn't sure which was being requested in that line. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

I think the product has become more stable. The customer service is good. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I find the customer service support to be very impressive. The vendor has always been very responsive to the development needs of the community.. This year even more so--I participated in a pilot project to test and evaluate new functionality and suggestions made resulted in changes to the functionality before it was rolled out to everyone else. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our library uses both WMS Discovery and Summon (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We do not yet have the report designer module that would better utilize the capabilities of WMS for reports. Their customer support has always been excellent. We used to have EBSCO Discovery, but had to cut our subscription to balance the budget. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The only module that needs serious improvement is the one for the reserve collections. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

While we much prefer the system we have now as it have much more 21st century features then our legacy system, the lack of special collection focussed features/functionality is an ongoing obstacle for us. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

No ILS is perfect or infinitely configurable but WMS does what it is supposed to do reasonably well and we found it to be really well priced. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Migrated from ILLiad to Tipasa ILL system this year. We were very pleased with the implementation and customer support provided by OCLC. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

WMS is a discovery platform as well as an ILS. The cost savings with this system is that you only pay for one interface. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

OCLC WMS: Pros: 1. streamline acquisitions and cataloging process which save time and labor. 2. OCLC maintains and updates the system for you. There is no maintenance in house. 3. WorldCat Discovery allow you to find titles that other libraries have. It provides good resources for collection development. Cons: 1. The data was stored in a vendor's cloud system, but not in local servers. There are many search interruptions or slow responses during the peak internet usage hours. 2. Increase in creating original cataloging (records); it's not easy to customize Marc records for local practices. 3. You can't globally download a whole set of Marc records into the system which can be time consuming for making electronic resource records such as Safari e-book database and Gale virtual reference ebooks available and searchable in library catalog. 4.The statistics tool (Analytics) generates very limited information on electronic resources records/collection. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

*number of items includes print and eResources (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Overall level of satisfaction with current ILS -- OCLC's WMS -- is split primarily among generational lines within our library: older staff seem to prefer the former software-based system, while younger staff prefer the newer cloud-based system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Though very satisfied with the back end processes, we continue to experience many frustrations with the WMS Discovery platform. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Collection development is driven by our community, so we need the full exposure to WorldCat resources. However, in a 2008 campus survey, the online catalog was the most important service provided by the library, and a 2018 survey indicated that it was 8th most important service (behind various instructional and technical support services). I'm concerned that the lack of appreciation for the activities of curation are indicative of an overall lack of knowledge about the process of building knowledge. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

Completeness: We are very impressed with OCLC's ongoing addition of new functionality. Where there are gaps, these often relate to needs specific to a national library and we are not convinced that these functions would be available with other systems. Electronic Resources: We rated this as 5 because we are not using WorldShare to its full capabilities to manage e-resources. Changes to customer support: We rated this as 5 because it is our first year of implementation and we have not noticed changes in the quality of customer support. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

WMS has always linking issues to electronic resources. It differs from time to time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Customer support remains a major problem. It is not uncommon for a support request to receive no response for several months, then a notice from OCLC that the problem has been solved when, in fact, the problem has not been solved. Example: I noticed records being dropped from our daily updated MARC records received through Collection Manager. I originally reported the problem in October 2018. Several back-and-forth emails followed through March 2019 without a full resolution. I heard nothing further until early December 2019, when OCLC reported that there was no evidence that the system was not delivering expected records, and that the ticket was being closed. I needed to check back only about two weeks in our daily feed of MARC records to find a bibliographic record that had been dropped from the collection. I reported this to OCLC, and the support analyst reopened the ticket and said that she would report the new information to the product team and have them analyze the problem further. Although specifics differ on support requests, this example is not unusual. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

El programa WMS es demasiado básico para cubrir las complejas necesidades de la Universidad [...], y responde a criterios acordes con una mentalidad (la anglosajona) bastante diferente de la europea. Sin embargo, hay que reconocer que OCLC ha admitido hacer ciertos desarrollos, solicitados nuestra biblioteca, que supondrán una mejora significativa de dicho SIGB, aunque, probablemente, no suficiente para nosotros. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

We are over all very pleased. We did have some tasking issues implementing this system for our print resources. It took a lot of work to get the WMS workflows to work with our national union cataloguing workflows (importing records etc.) But maybe this is not very surprising since we are the first library to use WMS in our country. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are in the process of migrating to Koha (with Bywater Solutions). So far we are very impressed with Bywater's service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Personally, I have used Koha in the past and would love to switch. This library uses WMS and I feel as though we will keep using it and Tipasa for a while since we process many ILLs and OCLC controls the ILL game. After using Koha, WMS seems unintuitive and I especially miss Koha's reporting functionality. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

WMS has been an enormous cost savings for us and has excellent features. Only wished we could customize reports without an additional cost, but the canned reports work fine. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

This year we migrated to WMS. The system is ok, however, the Discovery is not satisfactory yet. The discovery shows some books or articles as they belong to us but we don't have those books and access to the articles. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] , as part of the [...] consortium, would not consider a new ILS unless the group of member libraries also considered. We have discussed open soure ILS options but at this point in time, no concrete decisions to move away from WMS have really come up. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

WMS is about as good as all the other ILS products out there. The benefit is that OCLC is a non-profit, so you don't get caught up in the "proprietary" software problem. There is also a greater likelihood that requests for changes will be implemented without having to wait years and years. The product isn't perfect, and the Discovery layer isn't great (though I don't like ANY discovery products out there, they're all faulty), but our students, faculty, and public services librarians are getting used to it. It's much easier to use than Voyager; I wish it had a better reporting module that I didn't have to pay for. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Core functionality is adequate (circulation/cataloging). License Manager functionality is not very helpful, nor does it seem necessary. Enhancement requests go nowhere. Analytics functionality is more robust than needs to be, more variety in canned reporting desired but overall it works adequately. KB linking is vastly improved and appreciated. Connection with ILL deflection policies is not where it needs to be. Relationship with ATLAS systems for Interlibrary Loan services is not transparent. Why not just improve WMS ILL? Discovery interface is improving with more 3rd party applications. Developers do not design with end user in mind, though. Overall, we're satisfied with the gradual improvement, but we also have noted various functionality issues that need addressing. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We use WorldCat Discovery somewhat like a traditional OPAC for discovery of physical and electronic books and media. We use EBSCO Discovery for electronic journal article discovery, as our link resolver, and A-Z journal finder. To present, we have not considered WorldCat Discovery "ready for prime time" as a discovery platform, primarily because third party full text metadata is not as good as it could be. Admittedly, we're a strong EBSCO shop, and the user experience for discovery of EBSCO content in EDS is (understandably) excellent. We also push our library holdings, both print and electronic, into EDS. But conversely, we have not considered abandoning WorldCat since the union catalog is not discoverable in EDS (only local holdings), and we rely on WorldCat to support our ILL service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

vendor very responsive to support emails and phone calls. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

New academic programs at our community college meant we needed to migrate to a more robust ILS that would work with a local alliance of academic, research, and medical libraries, and allow for us to get ILLs. OCLC WMS won out in our search. I find cataloging and copy cataloging very fast and easy. Love having something meant for academic libraries, as opposed to our previous ILS, Koha, which we used with a consortium. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The product is continually evolving. When we first acquired the product, it was in its infancy, and it showed. Through feedback from our institution and other institutions, the product has matured, but I wouldn't consider it feature complete. It isn't always easy to manage. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

WMS does not include a shelf reading option. Inventory is also very complicated. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We migrated from SisiDynix Symphony to OCLC WMS in 2019. The migration was relatively smooth, and so far we are pleased with the change though we continue to tweak the implementation. This transition also reduces our yearly maintenance costs, though it will be 4 years until it pays for itself. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Many of our functionality wish-list items are already in product development, just a couple are not. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are relatively satisfied with WMS, and improvements are continuously being made. It is sometimes difficult to keep up with constant updates and there are several elements that could be more automated or that we wonder about the fact that it is not available. History being a guide we will probably not migrate for another 5 years at least. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

No of items in library collection: Print = 3000 / Electronic = 12,000. WMS and WCD continue to mature as products. The recent integration of LibKey into WCD has further enriched the discovery experience for our users. We also also implemented a 2nd WMS/WCD discovery service instance for the [...] (but managed by ANZCA). The ability of 2nd instance to leverage off our existing [...] WMS/WCD assets (via WMS Collection Manager) was crucial to the success of this project. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Local customer support has been unsatisfactory in the past year or so. The appointment of a new General Manager for the local team may improve things. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

  1. The library does not subscribe to Millennium since March 2018.
  2. On the WMS, we work with Legal Deposit and Adult Reference collections only.
  3. The figure of 2 200 000 only covers the Legal Deposit and Adult reference material. this does not cover our circulation material.
  4. We do not work with electronic resources.
(Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Estimated number of items unavailable - weeding in-process. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I was very dissatisfied with the migration experience; we had a hard time getting accurate information about our options. We lost a lot of data. However if I am honest, some our problems originated from ignorance on our part and the resulting lack of planning. I have not been happy with WMS record management (and the migration) because it seems oddly inflexible for a company that has built its business on MARC records. The Discovery layer from OCLC also seems to lack many features that were available in our previous provider. For example, it is hard to scope a search appropriately. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Relevancy of search results is an ongoing issue as is inconsistency of search results. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are in the process of migrating from our solo implementation of OCLC WorldShare Management Services/WorldCat Discovery to a consortium implementation of Ex Libris Alma/Primo. We anticipate our new system will go live in December 2020. While WMS has improved immensely in the 6-7 years we've used it, it has still not caught up to the level of functionality we had in our previous ILS or that we expect from our forthcoming Ex Libris system. OCLC WMS still lacks the ability to batch edit holdings records or local bibliographic data. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

Actually the ILS system implemented here is a good one, but unfortunately it had been implemented in the absence of professional ILS trained librarian that is why we have lot of issues with the customization and discovery service. moreover we have it on one pc and we are unable to add more stations to it as we have small peripheral libraries and we want to integrate them. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have poor customer service from the ILMS regional branchoffice (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Good implementation in terms of data migration, communication, and delivery on time. Many benefits of modern cloud SAAS multi-tenancy solution now being enjoyed. Significant issues with full-text content linking meant that the link resolver element is not being used. Cannot currently handle tax to UK specifications. Circulation matrix is restrictive in some areas - especially around requests and cross branch setup. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

OCLC misses key roadmap implementations to their products and uses dated underlying server structures to provide most of their services. As a result, Worldshare Management Services at first glance seems like a state of the art product until daily use reveals that it is poorly realized concept that doesn't get the TLC necessary to make it truly competitive in the LSP/ILS marketplace. Additionally, Worldcat Discovery has a poorly implemented UI that feels as if it was designed for Librarians first instead of being designed around the needs of the library's communities. Overall, OCLC pushes out new products rather than fully supporting and refining its existing product lineup. As an entity OCLC, would be well served by consolidating its product line-up in order to streamline processes and improve its overall services to its existing costumers. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

ILS