This fourteenth iteration of the International Survey of Library Automation was conducted during an extremely challenging period for libraries. The global COVID-19 pandemic imposed widespread disruption. Libraries abruptly closed their physical facilities and expanded their digital offerings. It is not a surprise that the number of responses to the Library Automation Survey were fewer than previous years. This year 2,849 libraries responded to the survey, a bit lower than the 3,234 recorded last year. The survey aims to capture meaningful information regarding the core technology systems on which libraries depend to manage their operations and to deliver access to their collections.
of Library Technology Guides.
| Notable Observations |
|---|
| Survey responses suggest ongoing success for Alma among academic libraries, given its generally respectable satisfaction ratings, strong loyalty scores, and top placement among migration intentions among libraries planning a change from legacy systems. Though not yet implemented widely enough to gauge satisfaction, migration intentions suggest FOLIO as Alma’s strongest competition going forward, though interest in OCLC WorldShare Management Services and Koha remain strong. |
| The decline of legacy products accelerates. Improving satisfaction rankings for both Voyager and Aleph, including rising loyalty scores, and migration intentions favoring Alma suggest most may stay within the Ex Libris camp, though many also express interest in FOLIO, WMS, and Koha. Libraries using Millennium show a continued decline in satisfaction ratings, loyalty scores, and migration intentions favoring Alma and FOLIO rather than Sierra. Especially in the academic library sector, the trajectories of libraries moving from legacy products will shape the next phase of implementations of the current flagship products. |
| In the public library sector where traditional ILS products prevail, responses indicate moderate interest in changing to new systems, though with no prevailing indicators of migration targets. Symphony (17%), Horizon (34%), Polaris (7.3%), Library.Solution (10.3%), Sierra (31%), VERSO (9.8%) |
| Libraries using modern web-based products have little interest in changing systems. Biblionix Apollo received high satisfaction scores and very few libraries using it are considering alternatives (1.1%). Even through their satisfaction ratings are not superlative, libraries using Ex Libris Alma (3.4%) and OCLC WorldShare Management Services (8.8%) expressed little interest in changing systems. |
| Open source products have become a routine option in all library sectors. Both major open source ILS products, Koha and Evergreen, show increasing levels of satisfaction, though a bit uneven depending on support arrangements. OPALS used mostly in school and academic libraries, earns superlative scores. Awareness of the FOLIO library services platform continues to increase with 88 libraries mentioning it among their migration candidates. |
Even in times of crisis, libraries continue their ongoing processes. System migrations planned or underway generally moved forward, often with some concessions to accommodate the need conduct the work entirely off site, with vendors and library personnel working remotely. Libraries continue to make progress in replacing legacy systems and to investigate new products well suited to their operational needs and strategic vision.
Statistical ratings and narrative comments given in survey responses fill in details surrounding the broader events in the library technology sector, such as Industry consolidation, open source software initiatives, and the decline of legacy products. Responses address some key questions: How are libraries reacting to the dominance of Alma in the academic library sector? How well does Alma serve smaller academic libraries? Are there leading indicators that anticipate the acceptance of FOLIO as an open source competitor? What are the intentions of libraries still using legacy products such as Voyager, Aleph, Virtua, and Millennium?
Trends in survey results over time track the impact of previous industry events on libraries. The generally negative fallout of the acquisition of SirsiDynix by Vista Equity Partners in 2007 coincided with a sharp plunge in satisfaction ratings for Symphony and Horizon, which have fully recovered and trended upward since its transition of ownership to ICV Partners. A dramatic decline in satisfaction ratings for Sierra followed Innovative’s transition to private equity ownership in 2012. Likewise, Polaris dropped from its previous superlative rankings once it was acquired by Innovative. In contrast, ratings for Alma continued a gradual improvement since Ex Libris was acquired by ProQuest. Satisfaction scores for Voyager improved following the acquisition of Endeavor Information Systems by Ex Libris, following a darker period of ownership by Elsevier. In this first year since the acquisition of Innovative by ProQuest satisfaction ratings for both Polaris and Sierra both turned upward. Survey results give early indications of library interest in FOLIO, especially through the migration intention trends.
Several themes are evident in the last few editions of the perceptions survey. Large libraries of all types have complex requirements and evaluate their systems on a much harsher scale than smaller organizations. Presenting results without regard to size categories would give misleading impressions. Products designed for small libraries would not be sucessful among larger and more complex institutions, despite superlative ratings by the small libraries that use them.
Conventional integrated library systems dominate public libraries, with top scores going to proprietary products in the largest tier and to those based on commercially supported open source software in the mid-size category. Small and very small public libraries also favored proprietary ILS products. In the academic library sector, survey results reveal notable patterns regarding library services platforms. These products received strong marks in most categories but are not rated as highly for managing print resources than legacy ILS products. Small libraries give superlative scores--with little differentiation among question categories--to products able to meet their basic requirements without complex features they don't need.
I appreciate the time given by all the libraries that responded to the survey this year given the many other issues competing for their attention during this year of the pandemic crisis. Each response contributes to a growing body of data available for the broader library community to consider when weighing options regarding these strategic technology products. Libraries have always relied on recommendations from their peers as they make system decisions. This survey provides a large aggregation of evaluative data that can complement more in-depth conversations that libraries considering a system would have with specific reference sites.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The 2021 Library Automation Perceptions Report provides evaluative ratings submitted by individuals representing 2849 libraries from 95 countries describing experiences with 132 different automation products, including both proprietary and open source systems. Since last year, the survey is titled according to the year in which the report is published rather than when the survey period started. The survey results include 544 narrative comments providing candid statements -- both positive and negative – about the products and companies involved or statements of intent regarding future automation plans. This report analyzes the results of the survey, presents a variety of statistical tables based on the data collected, and provides some initial observations. It aims to provide information to libraries as they evaluate their options for strategic technology products and to the organizations involved in providing these products and services as constructive criticism to help guide improvements.
| Selected Survey Findings: Top Performers |
|---|
| ByWater Solutions earned highest scores among mid-sized public libraries in all categories for its Koha services, as it also did last year. ByWater Solutions also received strong ratings among small academic libraries. |
| Large academic libraries gave Alma from Ex Libris top ratings in all categories. Only 3.7 percent of sites using Alma indicated interest in changing systems. For mid-sized academic libraries, Alma was rated highest for overall functionality, electronic resource management, and company loyalty. |
| Symphony from SirsiDynix Symphony has seen steadily improving ratings in this survey since 2008. It received top ratings among mid-sized academic libraries for print functionality and customer support. Among large public libraries, Symphony received top scores for overall ILS functionality and electronic resource management. |
| Apollo from Biblionix was the top performer among small public libraries in most categories: general satisfaction, overall functionality, print resource management, electronic resource management, customer support, and company loyalty and led the rankings among very small public libraries for every category. Apollo has received consistently positive rankings for all the years it has appeared in the survey. |
| Polaris received top rankings among large public libraries for general satisfaction, overall functionality, and print resource management. |
| OPALS, an open source ILS developed by Media Flex, received highest scores in all categories among school and small academic libraries. The narrative comments voiced unanimous support for the capabilities of the software and especially for the implementation and support services. |
Previous editions: 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007.
Libraries make major investments in strategic automation products, both during the initial implementation period and in annual fees paid for support, software maintenance, and other services. They depend on these products for efficient management of their daily operations and to provide access to their collections and services. This survey report allows libraries to benefit from the perceptions of their peers regarding the quality of automation systems and of the performance of the organizations involved in their development or support.
Libraries in immediate need of replacing their current system, or in the process of making longer term technology strategies, benefit from data across a variety of sources as they assess options. Technical documentation, marketing materials, product demonstrations, product vision statements and functionality checklists represent some sources of information to help libraries evaluate automation products. The vendor community naturally provides information and materials that presents their products in positive terms.
Another important avenue of investigation involves data from libraries with first-hand experience of the products and vendors. This survey aims to measure the perceptions libraries hold regarding their current automation products, the companies that support them and to capture their intentions about future migration options. It also explores interest in open source library automation systems, a key issue for the industry. Though its large number of responses, the survey aggregates the subjective experience of many libraries to create meaningful results, reasonably informative about the collective experience of libraries with this set of products and companies.
The survey allows only one response per library and only one response per individual. This approach ensures that no one library or individual can disproportionately impact survey results. The survey checks for existing responses from each e-mail address or library record number in libraries.org as part of its validation routine.
Confidentiality and Anonymity
The survey preserves the anonymity of the individuals responding as well as the institutions with which they are associated. Although response records contain data identifying the institution and the responders, extensive measures are taken to protect these data. Only the administrator of the survey has access to the raw survey response records. The tables of statistical summaries, interactive reports, and narrative reports are designed never to reveal identities of individuals or institutions. The survey publishes any narrative comments given in the responses. While preserving the original response comments, a duplicate of the comments are made in the survey records, with any identifying wording redacted. Names or institutions are replaced with a symbol indicating redaction: […].
Caveats
Any interpretation of the statistics must be seen in the context that larger and more complex libraries do not rate their automation systems as favorably as small libraries.
Libraries may refer to the results of this survey as they formulate technology strategies or evaluate specific products. Although the impressions of libraries using a given product inform one area of investigation, libraries should be careful not to overemphasize the statistics or narrative comments in a procurement process. While it reflects the responses of a large number of libraries using these products, the survey should be taken more as an instrument to guide what questions that a library might bring up in their considerations than to drive any conclusions. Especially for libraries with more complex needs, it's unrealistic to expect satisfaction scores at the very top of the rankings. Large and complex libraries exercise all aspects of an automation system and at any given time may have outstanding issues that would result in survey responses short of the highest marks. While a given product may earn positive responses from one sector, it may not be a good choice for libraries with different requirements.
Constructive criticism
The survey results also aims to provide useful information to the companies involved in the library automation industry. While many companies perform their own measures of client satisfaction, this survey may show perceptions quite different from internal customer surveys. The rankings in each category and the published comments can represent provide useful data to assist each of the companies hone in on problem areas and make any needed adjustments to their support procedures or product directions.
Survey Response Demographics
| Collection Size Categories | ||
|---|---|---|
| count | more | less |
| 220 | 0 | 10,000 |
| 854 | 10,001 | 50,000 |
| 376 | 50,001 | 100,000 |
| 456 | 100,001 | 250,000 |
| 277 | 250,001 | 500,000 |
| 180 | 500,001 | 1,000,000 |
| 294 | 1,000,001 | 10,000,000 |
| 29 | 10,000,001 | |
| 216 | No collection size data | |
| 2902 | Total of Categories | |
This year, the survey attracted 2,849 responses from libraries in 85 different countries. The countries most strongly represented include the United States (2,122 responses), followed by Canada (174), Australia (122), United Kingdom (86), Spain (33), New Zealand (22), and Ireland (18). As with the general demographics of the libraries.org database, the respondents of the library primarily come from libraries in English-speaking countries.
While the vast majority of responses continue to come from libraries in the United States, the survey aims to address the international library automation arena. This year the survey form was offered in English, Spanish (translated by Nieves González), French (translated by Alexandre Lemaire), German (translated by Susanne Schuster), Italian (translated by Andrea Marchitelli), Finnish (translated by Petri Tonteri ). Responses received from Spanish-speaking countries, included Spain (33), Argentina (6), Chile (7), Colombia (8), Mexico (4), and Uruguay (1). A total of 727 of the 2,849 total responses (25.5 percent) came from libraries outside the United States.
The survey received 2,849 responses: ( 2020=2,902; 2019=3,234; 2018=3,552; 2017=3,992; 2016=4,042; 2015=3,453; 2014=3,141; 2013=3,002; 2012=3,030; 2011=2,432; 2010=2,173; 2009=2,099; 2008=1,453; 2007=1,779 ). Across all its editions of the survey, the cumulative data collected totals 40,259 responses. The survey was open between November 14, 2020 and March 2, 2021.
There were 136 responses with no collection size data provided. These libraries were not able to be included in the parts of the analysis where libraries are segmented by size categories.
Public libraries were represented in largest numbers, with 1,242 responses, followed by academic libraries with 1,150. This year 293 responses came from school libraries.
The Survey Demographics Report summarizes the library types, countries, and products represented in the survey results:
General Information about the Survey
| Product | count | report |
|---|---|---|
| Symphony | 331 | ils report |
| Alma | 323 | ils report |
| Sierra | 299 | ils report |
| OPALS | 261 | ils report |
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 172 | ils report |
| Polaris | 163 | ils report |
| VERSO | 153 | ils report |
| WorldShare Management Services | 114 | ils report |
| Atriuum | 97 | ils report |
| Destiny | 94 | ils report |
| Apollo | 88 | ils report |
| Horizon | 82 | ils report |
| Library.Solution | 58 | ils report |
| Evergreen -- Equinox Software | 52 | ils report |
| Koha -- Independent | 41 | ils report |
| Evergreen -- Independent | 40 | ils report |
| ALEPH 500 | 40 | ils report |
| Koha | 35 | ils report |
| Voyager | 32 | ils report |
| Spydus | 25 | ils report |
| Carl.X | 22 | ils report |
| V-smart | 20 | ils report |
| EOS.Web | 18 | ils report |
| Millennium | 16 | ils report |
| Libero | 14 | ils report |
| LibraryWorld | 12 | ils report |
| Insignia | 11 | ils report |
| Koha -- Equinox Software | 11 | ils report |
| Evergreen | 10 | ils report |
| Koha -- PTFS Europe | 10 | ils report |
| Virtua | 10 | ils report |
The survey attracted responses from libraries using 104 different ILS products. Those represented by more than 20 are shown in the accompanying table, with links that generate a report providing the survey results for that product for each year the survey has been offered. Many other products were represented in the survey with few number of responses. Systems with less than 10 did not appear in the main statistical tables. These responses can be seen through the individual ILS Product Reports.
This report is an original publication of Library Technology Guides and is not slated to appear in any print publication. Please direct any comments or enquiries to the author.
This survey and its analysis reflect my ongoing interest in following trends in the library automation industry. It is designed to complement the annual Library Systems Report feature that I have written between 2002 and 2012 for Library Journal and since 2013 for American Libraries. The survey underlying the Library Systems Report article relies on information provided by the companies that offer library automation products and services. The survey that serves as the basis for this article collects data from the libraries themselves.
Survey Results
Migration Patterns and Trends
The survey provides the opportunity for libraries to indicate interest in migrating to a new system and what candidate systems are under consideration. The percentages shown reflect the number of responses where the library indicated that it is shopping for a new system relative to the total number of responses for that product. This table summarizes responses where the library indicates it is shopping for a new system.
| Percent of Libraries Considering Moving to new ILS | Current ILS | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALEPH 500 | 9.1% | 13.6% | 11.9% | 18.9% | 25.7% | 34.6% | 40.4% | 45.7% | 55.3% | 64.6% | 66.9% | 75.0% | 78.3% | 65.0% |
| Alma | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 25.0% | 16.7% | 4.3% | 2.3% | 2.5% | 1.2% | 3.2% | 3.7% | 3.4% |
| Apollo | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 3.5% | 0.9% | 0.0% | 1.8% | 2.9% | 1.1% |
| Horizon | 49.3% | 61.5% | 45.2% | 57.3% | 54.7% | 49.7% | 45.4% | 42.2% | 34.9% | 28.6% | 31.6% | 35.0% | 25.0% | 34.1% |
| Library.Solution | 12.1% | 3.3% | 8.7% | 14.3% | 14.4% | 13.6% | 12.9% | 10.8% | 18.3% | 12.4% | 25.2% | 22.5% | 16.4% | 10.3% |
| Millennium | 6.4% | 8.6% | 11.7% | 18.7% | 31.2% | 42.4% | 45.3% | 56.9% | 65.5% | 75.0% | 71.3% | 74.2% | 82.1% | 87.5% |
| Polaris | 1.6% | 9.4% | 6.5% | 5.8% | 1.9% | 1.2% | 0.7% | 5.3% | 7.9% | 7.3% | 7.9% | 8.1% | 8.4% | 7.4% |
| Sierra | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 3.1% | 6.4% | 10.8% | 12.9% | 13.4% | 19.2% | 21.4% | 33.1% | 31.4% |
| Symphony | 14.9% | 23.1% | 15.8% | 20.2% | 22.5% | 20.4% | 20.4% | 20.8% | 18.0% | 18.6% | 19.8% | 18.7% | 16.7% | 17.5% |
| Voyager | 21.6% | 21.8% | 19.5% | 32.3% | 38.3% | 49.4% | 50.9% | 67.5% | 69.2% | 66.7% | 69.7% | 83.1% | 82.4% | 75.0% |
| WorldShare Management Services | -- | -- | -- | -- | 0.0% | 0.0% | 3.1% | 4.1% | 3.2% | 6.0% | 7.0% | 9.2% | 5.1% | 10.5% |
Three legacy systems show signs that they have entered a final phase of thier product cycle, with over 65 percent of the libraries using them stating interest in migration (Voyager: 75.0; Aleph: 65.0; Millennium:87.5); We can anticipate that the numbers of libraries using these products to decline in the next few years. It is notable that the numbers of libraries using Aleph and Voyager indicating migration plans decreased a bit since last year. We cannot expect full extinction of any of these products for quite some time. There will be residual libraries using these products for at least another five years.
Libraries using SirsiDynix Horizon have shown a diminishing interest in migrating to new systems since 2010; The number of libraries planning to move from Horizon has vacillated. This year, 34.1 percent indicated migration intentions. SirsiDynix asserts that it will continue to support Horizon for the indefinite future and libraries using it show only moderate interest in changing.
Several flagship ILS products show a moderate interest in migration (Library.Solution: 10.3; Sierra 31.4; Symphony 17.5). About seven percent of libraries using Polaris and ten percent of those using WorldShare Management Services indicated interest in migrating.
Products with only negligible interest include Alma (3.4%) and Apollo (1.1%)
The academic library arena remains in a phase of migrations away from legacy products. The survey provides some indicators which may indicate the direction of future migrations:
- Aleph: 40 libraries responded; 65.0 percent indicated interest in migration; most (20) included Alma as a replacement candidate; 6 mentioned FOLIO; and 3 WMS. Loyalty score: 6.49.
- Voyager: 32 libraries responded; 75 percent indicated interest in migration; 11 included Alma as a replacement candidate; 6 mentioned FOLIO; 4 mentioned WMS. Loyalty Score: 6.90.
- Millennium: 16 libraries responded; 88.5 percent indicated interest in migration; 6 indicated Alma as a replacement candidate; 2 mentioned Sierra; 4 mentioned FOLIO; Loyalty Score: 3.57.
Large and mid-sized academic libraries give Alma high ratings for overall functionality and for electronic resource management, but give it weaker scores for managing print. These libraries give Sierra, Symphony, Aleph, and Voyager higher scores for managing print resources. Given that academic libraries spend ever smaller proportions of their collection budgets on print resources, perceived weaknesses in this category does not diminish the strategic impact of library services platforms such as Alma and WorldShare Management Services. Small academic libraries, which use Alma as members of consortia, generally gave Alma lower ratings. Alma’s ratings show strengths in larger academic institutions and for managing electronic resources. The libraries using Alma indicate very low interest in changing systems. Academic libraries using legacy systems identify Alma as a migration candidate more than any other product. All these factors can be seen as indicators of the continued momentum of Alma among large and mid-sized academic libraries. Interest in FOLIO shown through migration intentions continues to build, though with with only a handful of libraries usingg it in production, it does not appear in the satisfaction rating tables.
In order to identify potential patterns of future system migrations, the survey asks for the names of the products that the library is considering. In most cases, the responses included multiple products under consideration. The candidate systems mentioned may indicate serious evaluation or mere name recognition. Tabulating the names of the products listed shows strong interest in Alma (104), FOLIO (88), Koha (54), WorldShare Management Services (40), Sierra (8), Polaris (18), and Symphony (21). When asked about open source interest regardless of active plans to change systems, 176 mentioned Koha, 157 mentioned FOLIO, 44 mentioned Evergreen, and 1 mentioned TIND.
FOLIO has entered its implementation following a period of design and development. A handful of implementations have moved into production. This year 6 libraries using FOLIO responded to the survey, spanning 3 service providers: ByWater Solutions (3), EBSCO Information Services (2), and Index data (1). Without broader implementation, this survey cannot yet address its performance, but can measure interest. FOLIO has been mentioned by a growing number of libraries as a possible migration candidate. (In 2020 88 libraries looking for a new system listed FOLIO among products under consideration; 2019: 104; 2018: 65; 2017: 59; 2016: 41). 6 libraries using Alma noted interest in FOLIO; five of these libraries indicated they were considering changing systems.
The following table summarizes data provided on survey responses relating to whether the library is planning to migrate to a new system in the near future and candidate systems under consideration.
| 2020 Migration Intentions | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current ILS | Resp | Shopping | Percent | Academic | Alma | WorldShare | Polaris | Sierra | Symphony | FOLIO | Koha | Evergreen | TIND | |
| ALEPH 500 | 40 | 26 | 65.0 | 18 | 20 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| Horizon | 82 | 28 | 34.1 | 10 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | |
| Library.Solution | 58 | 6 | 10.3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
| Millennium | 16 | 14 | 87.5 | 10 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Sierra | 299 | 94 | 31.4 | 54 | 27 | 12 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 38 | 10 | 2 | 2 | |
| Polaris | 163 | 12 | 7.4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | |
| Symphony | 331 | 58 | 17.5 | 26 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 9 | 14 | 2 | 2 | |
| Voyager | 32 | 24 | 75.0 | 17 | 11 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | |
| Any Product | 104 | 40 | 18 | 8 | 21 | 88 | 54 | 11 | 5 | |||||
Note: These figures represent the number of times each product was mentioned among the candidates listed. The matrix lists only selected current ILS products and candidate systems under consideration. The sum of values given at the bottom of each column represents the total number of times the product was mentioned as a replacement candidate, including for products not among those selected for the table. The highlighted values indicate where the candidate system mentioned is provided by the same company as the incumbent.
International Perspective
The survey aims for a broad international perspective. Responses were received from the international clients of the systems commonly used in the United States as well as those that may be used primarily within other geographic regions or countries. A total of 1,006 responses were received from libraries located outside of the United States. Many of the products more familiar outside of the United States did not receive an adequate number of responses to appear in the main statistical tables.
| International Responses | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Total responses | United States | International |
| All Products | 2,849 | 2,122 | 727 |
| Symphony | 331 | 224 | 107 |
| Horizon | 82 | 55 | 27 |
| Sierra | 299 | 250 | 49 |
| Millennium | 16 | 10 | 6 |
| Polaris | 163 | 149 | 14 |
| Aleph | 40 | 11 | 29 |
| Voyager | 32 | 29 | 4 |
| Alma | 323 | 209 | 114 |
| WorldShare Management Services | 114 | 85 | 29 |
Selected Companies and Products
Innovative Interfaces, Inc.
Innovative Interfaces develops and supports a variety of technology products for libraries, including Sierra, Polaris, and Virtua and is active in almost all global regions. The company was acquired by ProQuest in the beginning of 2020. This year's survey provides the opportunity to note any changes that may be due to the new ownership and management. Both Sierra and Polaris saw sharp increases in satisfaction across all categories, with the the strongest improvement seen in support. Its Millennium ILS, the predecessor to Sierra continues to be widely used, though the number of implementations is declining rapidly. Satisfaction scores for Millennium continue a downward decline, except for support, which saw a notable rise from 4.59 last year to 5.44. Libraries of all types and sizes have implemented the products of Innovative (view company profile). The company was well represented in this year’s survey results with 299 from libraries using Sierra, 163 using Polaris, 16 using Millennium, and 10 using Virtua, or 488 in total.
Innovative has seen changes in its ownership over the course of this survey. The company saw a change of ownership in Mar 2012 and subsequently acquired Polaris (Mar 2014) and VTLS (Jun 2014). More recently, Innovative was acquired by ProQuest in January 2020. This timeline of events can be considered in relation to the survey results over this period.
Sierra
Sierra (full statistical report and narrative comments) has been implemented by many types of libraries throughout many international regions. This year responses were completed by 290 libraries, including 127 academic libraries, 124 publics, 19 consortia and 5 special library. Loyalty scores were weak overall (5.51), with large public libraries (5.15) and large academics (3.93) expressing the least commitment to acquiring their next system from this company. When considering ratings given over time, ILS Support declined significantly from 2012 (7.96) through 2019 (5.16). This year's satisfaction score increased to 5.93. General satisfaction increased since last year (5.92 > 6.17). Innovative generally saw a steep decline in performance ratings during its period of private equity ownership (2012-2019). So far, its ownership by ProQuest has prompted more positive satisfaction ratings. 93 out of the 299 responses (31.1%) indicated interest in moving from Sierra to a new system.
The following table presents the 2020 survey results by library type and size
| 2020 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Sierra | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 290 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 19 | 13 | 33 | 50 | 94 | 53 | 12 | 7 | 6.17 | 7 |
| ILS Functionality | 289 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 8 | 16 | 28 | 52 | 92 | 61 | 19 | 7 | 6.45 | 7 |
| Print Functionality | 288 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 12 | 30 | 62 | 122 | 48 | 8 | 7.37 | 8 | |
| Electronic Functionality | 291 | 12 | 10 | 23 | 32 | 38 | 43 | 48 | 46 | 29 | 10 | 6 | 4.99 | 5 |
| Company Satisfaction | 283 | 5 | 6 | 17 | 16 | 23 | 41 | 56 | 62 | 41 | 16 | 7 | 5.75 | 6 |
| Support Satisfaction | 284 | 2 | 10 | 15 | 17 | 14 | 34 | 67 | 60 | 41 | 24 | 6 | 5.93 | 6 |
| Company Loyalty | 289 | 19 | 13 | 14 | 12 | 24 | 46 | 40 | 51 | 38 | 32 | 7 | 5.51 | 6 |
| Open Source Interest | 264 | 60 | 18 | 22 | 20 | 13 | 35 | 28 | 22 | 24 | 14 | 0 | 4.05 | 4 |
Millennium
A decreasing number of libraries continue to use Millennium (full product report and narrative comments) with many shifting to Sierra and other products (see selection/deselection report). Of the libraries that continue to use Millennium, the proportion of academics are higher than publics compared to Sierra (see graph of Millennium sites by type).
The numbers of responses from libraries using Millennium have declined since 2011 when 455 responded, consistent with the gradual migration from this legacy product. Only 16 libraries using Millennium responded this year (2019=39; 2018=66; 2017=94; 2016=144; 2015=174; 2014=210; 2013=248; 2012=389; 2011=454). Over the editions of the survey, Millennium has shifted from Innovative's flagship ILS to a legacy product. Out of the 16 libraries which responded this year, 13 indicated interest in moving to a new system. The percentages of libraries indicating interest in moving to a new system has increased from 6.4% in 2007 before the announcement of Sierra to 82.2% this year. Millennium is approaching the end of its product cycle. Migration options mentioned included Alma (6), Sierra (2), WorldShare Management Services (3), Koha (1), and FOLIO (4). More libraries mentioned Alma or FOLIO as a replacement candidate for Millennium than Innovative's own Sierra.
Response data from previous years for Millennium shows steady ratings from 2007 through 2010, with declining satisfaction scores since. This year support scores improved, though company loyalty declined. (General satisfaction: 2007: 7.17, 2008: 7.08, 2009: 7.13, 2010: 7.11, 2011: 6.88, 2012: 6.68, 2013: 6.44, 2014: 6.12, 2015: 5.77, 2016: 5.14, 2017: 5.47, 2018: 5.23, 2019: 5.32; 2020: 4.69). The survey results suggest that most of those libraries remaining on Millennium are not inclined to migrate to Innovative's own Sierra ILS, but are considering other options.
The following table presents the 2020 survey results by library type and size
| 2020 Millennium Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Millennium | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 16 | 4.69 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | ||||||||
| ILSFunctionality | 16 | 4.25 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | ||||||||
| PrintFunctionality | 15 | 6.93 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | ||||||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 16 | 3.69 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | ||||||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 16 | 5.44 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | ||||||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 14 | 3.57 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||||||||
Polaris
Polaris (full product report and narrative comments) has been implemented primarily by public libraries) within the United States and Canada, with 258 libraries responding to this year’s survey. Polaris continues to be well appreciated by large public libraries, earning top rankings in for general satisfaction (7.48), print resource management (8.08). Polaris ranked second in its scores for electronic resource management (5.50). The overall level of scores in the category of electronic resource management was substantially lower than others.
From 2007 through 2012 Polaris consistently was rated as one of the top performing systems, though in 2008 libraries gave somewhat lower ratings for support. From 2012 through 2019, ratings for Polaris declined in all categories. This year, satisfaction scores improved in all categories, with the sharpest rise in company loyalty.
The following table presents the 2020 survey results by library type and size
| 2020 Polaris Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Polaris | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 157 | 7.46 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 77 | 7.27 | 40 | 7.63 | 16 | 7.50 | 1 | 12 | 7.67 | ||||
| ILSFunctionality | 156 | 7.34 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 76 | 7.28 | 40 | 7.40 | 16 | 7.00 | 1 | 12 | 7.33 | ||||
| PrintFunctionality | 157 | 7.83 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 77 | 7.69 | 40 | 8.00 | 16 | 8.06 | 1 | 12 | 7.75 | ||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 154 | 6.21 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 76 | 6.29 | 40 | 6.30 | 15 | 5.20 | 0 | 12 | 6.25 | ||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 147 | 7.30 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 70 | 7.19 | 39 | 7.33 | 16 | 7.81 | 0 | 12 | 7.50 | ||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 153 | 7.10 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 77 | 7.01 | 36 | 7.31 | 16 | 7.75 | 1 | 12 | 7.42 | ||||
Virtua
Virtua continues to be supported by Innovative, is no longer sold, and its number of installations is falling rapidly. This year 10 libraries using Virtua (full product report and narrative comments) responded to the survey. 7 out of these libraries stated interest in migrating to a new system (70%). The number of responses was too low for confident results. The ratings for across most categories were better than last year. Ratings for loyalty dipped (4.57 in 2019; 4.4 in 2020).
The following table presents the 2020 survey results by library type and size
| 2020 Virtua Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Virtua | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 10 | 5.60 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| ILSFunctionality | 10 | 5.40 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| PrintFunctionality | 10 | 7.20 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 10 | 4.00 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 10 | 7.20 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 10 | 4.40 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
Ex Libris
Ex Libris (view company profile) specializes in technologies for academic, research, and national libraries, offering a wide range of products and services, including its current Alma library services platform. The company continues to support its legacy Aleph and Voyager integrated library systems as thier number of installations continues to diminish. This year 319 libraries using Alma, 39 using Aleph, and 32 using Voyager responded to the survey, for a total of 390 overall. Its products have been implemented by libraries in all geographic regions. Ex Libris was acquired by ProQuest in December 2015.
The libraries which have implemented Ex Libris products tend to be large and complex, and tend not to give superlative ratings. The perceptions of customer support from Ex Libris are moderate this year.
Alma
Alma (full product report and narrative comments), designed for academic, research, and national libraries (graph of Alma implementations by type) earned top rankings among academic libraries with collections over 1 million volumes for for general ILS satisfaction (6.98), overall ILS functionality (7.14), print resource functionality (7.40) effectiveness of managing electronic resources (6.75). This year Alma showed improvements in all categories compared to 2019. General satisfaction has improved steadily since 2012. Only 3.41 percent of libraries responding indicated interest in changing systems.
Mid-sized academics rated Alma highest in the category of Overall ILS functionality (7.41) and effectiveness in managing electronic resources (7.12).
Alma was not rated as positively among small academic libraries. Its ragings were in the lower third of the pack, except in the category relating to the management of electronic resources, its scores were in the upper third (6.86).
The following table presents the 2020 survey results by library type and size
| 2020 Alma Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alma | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 319 | 7.06 | 78 | 7.12 | 98 | 7.12 | 81 | 6.98 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 6.60 | ||||
| ILSFunctionality | 318 | 7.26 | 78 | 7.27 | 97 | 7.40 | 81 | 7.14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 7.30 | ||||
| PrintFunctionality | 315 | 7.50 | 78 | 7.54 | 96 | 7.53 | 80 | 7.40 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 7.67 | ||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 314 | 6.94 | 78 | 6.86 | 96 | 7.10 | 81 | 6.75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 6.56 | ||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 319 | 6.23 | 78 | 6.31 | 98 | 6.21 | 81 | 6.10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 6.30 | ||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 311 | 7.12 | 77 | 7.01 | 93 | 7.24 | 80 | 7.19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 7.30 | ||||
Voyager
Voyager, (full product report and narrative comments), acquired by Ex Libris from Elsevier in Nov 2006, and developed specifically for academic libraries, (graph of Voyager implementations by type) though during a time when their collections included mostly print materials.
Its legacy in print can be seen in its ratings were its functionality for print received its highest scores (7.13) and functionality for electronic resources received the lowest (4.00).
This year libraries gave the most positive ratings to Voyager for customer support (7.13) and in company loyalty (6.90). Most libraries currently using Voyager indicate interest in migrating to a new system (71.9%). Of those considering migrating, more mentioned Alma among the candidate replacements (11). Others mentioned included FOLIO (6), WorldShare Management Services (4), Sierra (1), and Koha (3).
The following table presents the 2020 survey results by library type and size
| 2020 Voyager Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Voyager | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 32 | 5.81 | 6 | 6.17 | 7 | 6.29 | 10 | 5.60 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| ILSFunctionality | 32 | 5.53 | 6 | 5.50 | 7 | 6.00 | 10 | 5.30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| PrintFunctionality | 32 | 7.13 | 6 | 6.67 | 7 | 7.57 | 10 | 7.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 31 | 4.00 | 6 | 4.50 | 7 | 5.29 | 10 | 3.40 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 31 | 7.13 | 6 | 6.17 | 6 | 7.83 | 10 | 6.90 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 30 | 6.90 | 6 | 6.83 | 6 | 8.00 | 10 | 6.10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
Aleph
Aleph (full product report and narrative comments), an established ILS product created by Ex Libris primarily for academic libraries (graph of Aleph implementations by type) continues to be used in many libraries, though the numbers are diminishing, (see selection/deselection report) driven by Aleph’s orientation to print materials and the increasing dominance of electronic resources in academic libraries.
Ratings in all categories were higher to those given last year, with the most improved scores given in the product support and company loyalty categories. Libraries using Aleph have shown a growing loyalty to Ex Libris from 2007 (4.65) through this year (6.49).
62.5 percent of libraries using Aleph indicate interest in moving to a new system. Migration candidates mentioned included Alma (20), WorldShare Management Services (3), FOLIO (6), and Koha (1). These statistics point to a trend that a large portion of libraries now using Aleph will stay within the Ex Libris fold and eventually move to Alma.
The following table presents the 2020 survey results by library type and size
| 2020 ALEPH 500 Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALEPH 500 | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 39 | 5.97 | 7 | 6.57 | 10 | 4.40 | 8 | 6.38 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | |||||
| ILSFunctionality | 39 | 5.77 | 7 | 6.00 | 10 | 4.10 | 8 | 6.25 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | |||||
| PrintFunctionality | 36 | 7.31 | 6 | 7.67 | 10 | 6.20 | 8 | 7.50 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 39 | 3.92 | 7 | 5.71 | 10 | 2.10 | 8 | 3.63 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | |||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 37 | 6.73 | 7 | 6.57 | 8 | 5.75 | 8 | 7.50 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | |||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 39 | 6.49 | 7 | 7.00 | 10 | 5.90 | 8 | 6.38 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | |||||
OCLC
OCLC, a non-profit membership organization (view company profile), offers many different products and services to libraries. OCLC has developed WorldShare Management Services and WorldCat discovery service and supports a variety of ILS products acquired from other companies. This year 109 libraries using WorldShare Management Services responded to the survey.
WorldShare Management Services
A total of 112 libraries using WorldShare Management Services (full product report and narrative comments), from OCLC responded to this year’s survey. This product has been implemented primarily in academic libraries; (graph of WorldShare Management Services implementations by type) most responses to this year’s survey for WMS were from academic libraries, except for 2 special libraries, 2 public libraries, and 1 consortium.
WorldShare Management Services did not receive enough responses to appear in the large academic library tables. Among mid-sized academic libraries, WMS received the highest ratings for overall product satisfaction (7.24). In the category of electronic resource management, libraries rated WMS (7.00) only slightly below Alma (7.12).
From 2012 through 2014 ratings for WorldShare Management Services gradually increased, declined a bit through 2017. Scores in all categories since 2017 have improved each year.
The following table presents the 2020 survey results by library type and size
| 2020 WorldShare Management Services Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WorldShare Management Services | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 112 | 7.09 | 40 | 7.25 | 33 | 7.24 | 8 | 6.75 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | |||||
| ILSFunctionality | 111 | 7.22 | 40 | 7.33 | 33 | 7.36 | 8 | 6.25 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | |||||
| PrintFunctionality | 112 | 7.60 | 40 | 7.70 | 33 | 7.67 | 8 | 7.38 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | |||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 111 | 7.04 | 40 | 7.33 | 33 | 7.00 | 8 | 6.75 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | |||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 111 | 7.29 | 40 | 7.53 | 32 | 7.44 | 8 | 7.75 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | |||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 111 | 6.99 | 40 | 7.22 | 32 | 7.13 | 8 | 6.63 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | |||||
SirsiDynix
SirsiDynix (view company profile), provides its Symphony, Horizon, and EOS.Web integrated library systems and is developing a set of web-based complementary products delivered through its new BLUEcloud platform. The company saw a new ownership arrangement in December 2014 through its acquisition by ICV Partners from Vista Equity Partners.
This year 321 libraries using Symphony responded to the survey (2019: 439; 2018: 473, 2017: 531, 2016: 436, 2015: 436, 2014: 354, 2013: 315, 2012: 380, 2011: 326, 2010: 271, 2009: 304, 2008: 233, 2007: 284). Another 82 libraries using Horizon and 18 using EOS.Web completed responses, for a total of 421 SirsiDynix libraries represented in the survey
Following the acquisition of SirsiDynix by Vista Equity Partners in 2006, ratings for both Symphony and Horizon dropped for all categories in 2008, but have improved every year since. Looking at this trend demonstrates that while there may be negative fallout following a business event, that a company can work to improve its perceptions over time. The ownership of SirsiDynix changed again in December 2014 with its acquisition by ICV Partners. This first year since that transition saw continued movement upward in perceptions scores for Symphony and Horizon. Ratings for EOS.Web have seen declining scores for the last two years.
Symphony
SirsiDynix Symphony (full product report and narrative comments), finds use all types and sizes of libraries and in many throughout international regions.
Mid-sized academics libraries rated Symphony highest in satisfaction for customer support (8.04), and for print functionality (7.79). Among large public libraries, Symphony received highest ratings for ILS functionality (7.21), and functionality for electronic resources (6.38).
17.2 percent of libraries (57 out of 331 responses) indicated consideration of migrating from Symphony. Of those registering interest in changing, 26 were academic libraries. Candidate systems mentioned included Alma (9), WorldShare Management Services (5), Koha (9), Polaris (6), FOLIO (9), and Evergreen (2). 2 mentioned remaining with Symphony among the considerations.
SirsiDynix Symphony has seen steadily improving ratings in this survey since 2008.
The following table presents the 2020 survey results by library type and size
| 2020 Symphony Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Symphony | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 321 | 6.98 | 42 | 6.10 | 24 | 7.08 | 10 | 6.30 | 112 | 7.04 | 52 | 7.35 | 16 | 7.44 | 8 | 7.50 | 24 | 7.29 |
| ILSFunctionality | 322 | 7.05 | 41 | 6.39 | 24 | 7.04 | 10 | 5.90 | 114 | 7.17 | 52 | 7.31 | 16 | 7.19 | 8 | 7.88 | 24 | 7.33 |
| PrintFunctionality | 318 | 7.49 | 41 | 7.12 | 24 | 7.79 | 10 | 7.30 | 111 | 7.33 | 52 | 7.69 | 15 | 7.73 | 8 | 8.13 | 24 | 7.67 |
| ElectronicFunctionality | 308 | 5.90 | 40 | 4.17 | 23 | 5.57 | 9 | 4.56 | 105 | 6.46 | 50 | 6.34 | 16 | 6.56 | 8 | 7.00 | 24 | 5.42 |
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 314 | 7.61 | 41 | 6.90 | 24 | 8.04 | 9 | 7.78 | 107 | 7.50 | 52 | 7.96 | 16 | 7.69 | 8 | 7.88 | 24 | 7.92 |
| CompanyLoyalty | 316 | 7.00 | 42 | 6.29 | 24 | 6.92 | 10 | 6.10 | 111 | 7.06 | 49 | 7.24 | 16 | 7.25 | 8 | 7.63 | 24 | 7.58 |
Horizon
Libraries using Horizon (full product report and narrative comments), continue to show less interest in changing systems, apparently accepting the messaging from SirsiDynix that it will continue to be supported in the long term. Horizon, implemented in many types of libraries, is the only legacy system showing decreased numbers in libraries considering migrating to a new system (see selection/deselection report). This year 28 out of 82 (34.2%) responses indicated interest in change, and dramaticly less than in 2008 when 61.5 percent of libraries using Horizon indicated they were shopping for a new system. Of those libraries indicating interest in mmoving away from Horizon, candidate systems included Symphony (5), Polaris (3), Sierra (0), Alma (8), WorldShare Management Services (5), Koha (1), and FOLIO (4).
The following table presents the 2020 survey results by library type and size
| 2020 Horizon Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Horizon | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 82 | 6.89 | 11 | 6.27 | 5 | 1 | 23 | 7.35 | 25 | 6.80 | 5 | 3 | 3 | |||||
| ILSFunctionality | 82 | 6.91 | 11 | 6.55 | 5 | 1 | 23 | 7.30 | 25 | 7.08 | 5 | 3 | 3 | |||||
| PrintFunctionality | 82 | 7.72 | 11 | 7.09 | 5 | 1 | 23 | 7.83 | 25 | 7.56 | 5 | 3 | 3 | |||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 82 | 5.46 | 11 | 4.00 | 5 | 1 | 23 | 6.30 | 25 | 5.52 | 5 | 3 | 3 | |||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 81 | 7.84 | 11 | 8.45 | 5 | 1 | 22 | 7.73 | 25 | 7.52 | 5 | 3 | 3 | |||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 79 | 7.25 | 11 | 7.55 | 5 | 1 | 21 | 7.29 | 24 | 7.17 | 5 | 3 | 3 | |||||
EOS.Web
EOS.Web (full product report and narrative comments), acquired by SirsiDynix in November 2013, received 18 responses in this year's survey. The product is used mostly by special libraries and does not appear in the statistical summary tables in this report. Out of the 62 responses, 6 indicated interest in changing systems (18.8 percent). The responses from libraries using EOS.Web have been erratic across the annual editions of the survey. Satisfaction scores in all categories were sharply down over those seen in 2017 to 2019, but improved this year.
The following table presents the 2020 survey results by library type and size
| 2020 EOS.Web Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EOS.Web | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 18 | 6.56 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | ||||||||
| ILSFunctionality | 18 | 6.28 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | ||||||||
| PrintFunctionality | 18 | 7.28 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | ||||||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 18 | 4.94 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | ||||||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 18 | 7.39 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | ||||||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 18 | 6.72 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | ||||||||
The Library Corporation
The Library Corporation (view company profile) working primarily with public libraries, offers the Library.Solution and CARL.X integrated library systems. This year there were 65 responses from libraries using Library.Solution and 14 for libraries using Carl.X.
Library.Solution
Library.Solution (full product report and narrative comments), implemented primarily in small to mid-sized public libraries performed best in the mid-sized public library arena, from whom it received somewhat higher ratings than those given by small public libraries. Mid-sized public libraries gave Library.Solution moderate ratings in most categories. Libraries using Library.Solution give higher ratings for support (7.33) than for the other categories. 6 out of the 58 respnoses (10.3%) indicated interest in migrating to a new product. The Library Corporation has seen generally lowering ratings from 2015 though 2017 with improved satisfaction scores given the last two years. Company loyalty scores are lower than those for the other categories. While libraries using Library.Solution give TLC strong ratings as a company and for support, they do not necessarily affirm loyalty as they consider new products.
The following table presents the 2020 survey results by library type and size
| 2020 Library.Solution Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Library.Solution | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 56 | 7.09 | 7 | 6.14 | 1 | 0 | 32 | 7.09 | 6 | 6.00 | 0 | 6 | 8.00 | 0 | ||||
| ILSFunctionality | 56 | 7.02 | 7 | 6.29 | 1 | 0 | 32 | 7.00 | 6 | 5.83 | 0 | 6 | 7.83 | 0 | ||||
| PrintFunctionality | 55 | 7.24 | 7 | 6.29 | 1 | 0 | 31 | 7.26 | 6 | 6.67 | 0 | 6 | 7.83 | 0 | ||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 54 | 6.37 | 6 | 4.67 | 1 | 0 | 31 | 6.19 | 6 | 6.83 | 0 | 6 | 7.00 | 0 | ||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 55 | 7.33 | 7 | 7.57 | 1 | 0 | 31 | 7.00 | 6 | 6.83 | 0 | 6 | 8.00 | 0 | ||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 56 | 6.88 | 7 | 5.14 | 1 | 0 | 32 | 6.97 | 6 | 6.17 | 0 | 6 | 8.17 | 0 | ||||
Carl.X
Carl.X (full product report and narrative comments), is used primarily by large municipal libraries and consortia. With only 22 responses this year, Carl.X does not appear in the statistical tables. Ratings given for Carl.X were substantially higher since 2018 year in all categories. Libraries using Carl.X gave The Library Corporation thier highest scores for product support (7.82) and lowest for support for electronic resources (6.50).
The following table presents the 2020 survey results by library type and size
| 2020 Carl.X Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carl.X | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 22 | 7.05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 6.08 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | |||||||
| ILSFunctionality | 21 | 6.57 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 6.09 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | |||||||
| PrintFunctionality | 22 | 7.18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 6.33 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | |||||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 20 | 6.50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 6.42 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | |||||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 22 | 7.82 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 7.17 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | |||||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 21 | 7.29 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 6.18 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | |||||||
Biblionix
Biblionix (view company profile) is a small family-owned and managed business based in Austin, TX that focuses entirely on small and mid-sized public libraries and has developed Apollo an entirely web-based ILS deployed through a multi-tenant platform. This year 84 libraries using Apollo responded to the survey, all from public libraries.
Apollo
Apollo (full product report and narrative comments), is a Web-based integrated library system implemented only by public libraries with small or mid-sized collections. Apollo was the top performer among small public librariesin most categories: general satisfaction (8.62), overall functionality (8.50), print resource management (8.50), electronic resource management (7.89), customer support (8.55), and company loyalty (8.32). It led the rankings among very small public libraries for every category: general satisfaction (8.55), overall ILS functionality (8.35), print resource management (8.15), electronic resource management (7.91), and customer support (8.52). It was rated second for company loyalty (8.40). This product has seen consistently positive rankings for all the years it has appeared in the survey. Although small variations are seen from year to year, the satisfaction ratings given to Apollo fall consistently in the 8.0 to 8.8 range. Within the realm of small and very small public libraries, Apollo has exceptionally happy customers.
The following table presents the 2020 survey results by library type and size
| 2020 Apollo Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apollo | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 84 | 8.60 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 83 | 8.59 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| ILSFunctionality | 83 | 8.40 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 82 | 8.39 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| PrintFunctionality | 83 | 8.47 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 82 | 8.46 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 83 | 8.06 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 82 | 8.05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 83 | 8.55 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 82 | 8.55 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 84 | 8.37 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 83 | 8.36 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
Book Systems, Inc.
Book Systems (view company profile) develops software used primarily in schools and small public libraries, primarily in the United States.
Atriuum
This year 97 libraries using Atriuum (full product report and narrative comments), from Book Systems responded to the survey; 83 were from small public libraries, 4 from schools, and 2 from academic libraries. Although a higher proportion of Atriuum installations are in K-12 schools, these libraries tend to be less likely to respond to the survey. Libraries using Atriuum indicated strong loyalty to Book Systems, leading its competitors in this category among very small public libraries; and ranked second in all the other categories. Among small public libraries, Atriuum received satisfaction scores across all categories that place it in the top third of rankings. The company earned its strongest ratings in customer support (8.38); Since 2011 its scores have fallen consistently in the 7.5 to 8.3 range in all categories, reflecting extremely high levels of satisfaction. Scores in the last three years have shown even further improvement.
The following table presents the 2020 survey results by library type and size
| 2020 Atriuum Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atriuum | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 97 | 8.12 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 82 | 8.12 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||||
| ILSFunctionality | 95 | 7.97 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 80 | 8.00 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||||
| PrintFunctionality | 94 | 7.98 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 79 | 8.04 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 89 | 6.89 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 76 | 6.97 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 97 | 8.38 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 82 | 8.30 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 95 | 8.08 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 80 | 8.14 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||||
Civica
Civica operates primarily outside of the United States, with a strong presence in the United Kingdom, Asia, and Australia, and serves mostly public and school libraries.
Spydus
This year 24 libraries using Spydus (full product report and narrative comments), from Civica responded to the survey, with most coming from small and mid-sized public libraries and outside the United States. Of the 24 libraries responding, only 1 indicated interest in migrating to a new system. Since 2011 ratings for Spydus have been mostly consistent and generally positive in all categories. Ratings have declined somewhat since 2016, but improved this year. Libraries using Spydus gave Civica lower ratings for support than for other categories.
The relatively low number of responses reduces the confidence that these rankings are representative of the broader community of libraries using Spydus.
The following table presents the 2020 survey results by library type and size
| 2020 Spydus Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spydus | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 24 | 7.17 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 7.36 | 8 | 7.25 | 2 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| ILSFunctionality | 24 | 7.04 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 7.55 | 8 | 6.75 | 2 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| PrintFunctionality | 24 | 7.79 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 7.73 | 8 | 8.13 | 2 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 24 | 6.00 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 6.36 | 8 | 5.75 | 2 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 22 | 6.64 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 6.91 | 8 | 6.63 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 24 | 6.75 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 6.82 | 8 | 7.25 | 2 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
Koha
| Support provider | Responses | General Satisfaction |
|---|---|---|
| All Installations | 302 | 7.83 |
| ByWater Solutions | 170 | 7.84 |
| Independent | 37 | 8.08 |
| LibLime | 6 | 6.0 |
| Equinox | 10 | 8.00 |
| Interleaf Technology | 9 | 6.78 |
| PTFS Europe | 10 | 8.40 |
Koha (full product report and narrative comments), an open source integrated library system has been implemented by libraries of all types and in all parts of the world.
As an open source ILS, Koha can be downloaded and installed by libraries on their own, though many contract for installation, support, or hosting from commercial or non-profit support organizations. Those implementing Koha on their own are designated "Koha -- Independent" and others are qualified by the name of the support firm. The following table summarizes the number of libraries using Koha, their support arrangement, the number responses, and the general product support rating. Those with fewer than 6 responses fall below the threshold of performing the statistical calculations. This year 315 libraries using Koha responded to the survey.
When aggregating response scores across all support arrangements, ratings given to Koha have been generally rising since 2011. Scores across all Koha implementations were lower 2008 and 2009 than previous or subsequent years, due primarily to the low ratings from libraries using LibLime Koha, which had a strong presence in the US at that time. Since 2010 satisfaction scores given for all support arrangemetns for the community-supported Koha have steadily increased. Responses this year continued this trend of improved satisfaction.
The following table presents the 2020 survey results by library type and size
| 2020 Koha Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Koha | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 302 | 7.83 | 66 | 7.73 | 13 | 7.54 | 4 | 105 | 7.88 | 13 | 7.62 | 0 | 9 | 8.11 | 6 | 8.17 | ||
| ILSFunctionality | 303 | 7.69 | 66 | 7.39 | 13 | 7.46 | 4 | 105 | 7.83 | 13 | 7.23 | 0 | 9 | 8.11 | 6 | 7.50 | ||
| PrintFunctionality | 302 | 8.01 | 66 | 7.98 | 12 | 7.75 | 4 | 104 | 7.89 | 13 | 7.77 | 0 | 9 | 8.67 | 6 | 8.67 | ||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 285 | 6.53 | 64 | 6.52 | 13 | 5.23 | 3 | 94 | 6.64 | 12 | 6.92 | 0 | 9 | 7.33 | 6 | 7.33 | ||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 296 | 7.89 | 65 | 7.38 | 11 | 6.82 | 4 | 104 | 8.21 | 13 | 8.08 | 0 | 9 | 8.56 | 6 | 8.00 | ||
| CompanyLoyalty | 289 | 7.61 | 60 | 7.22 | 13 | 6.46 | 4 | 103 | 7.91 | 12 | 8.08 | 0 | 8 | 7.50 | 6 | 8.83 | ||
ByWater Solutions
Koha supported by ByWater Solutions (full product report and narrative comments), (view company profile) offers support services for Koha, with most of its client libraries located in the United States. ByWater serves many different types of libraries (see charts for library type and library size). This year’s breakdown of the 170 responses included 108 public libraries, 35 academics, 6 consortia, and 5 schools.
ByWater Solutions receives quite positive satisfaction scores despite its challenges of supporting a rapidly growing customer base of diverse types of libraries. Its clients increasingly include larger institutions which tend to be less likely to give highly positive ratings.
ByWater Solutions earned highest scores among mid-sized public libraries in all categories, as it also did last year: overall satisfaction (8.25), general ILS functionality (7.92), print functionality (8.38), effectiveness for electronic resources (6.61), satisfaction with customer support (8.50), and company loyalty (8.96). ByWater Solutions also received strong ratings among small academic libraries.
When comparing rankings across the multiple years of the survey, ByWater saw diminishing satisfaction from 2010 through 2014, with a significant improvement since that year. Libraries contracting with ByWater Solutions gave slightly higher ratings for support than other categories. The narrative comments given were overwhelmingly positive.
The following table presents the 2020 survey results by library type and size
| 2020 Koha -- ByWater Solutions Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 170 | 7.84 | 28 | 7.71 | 3 | 1 | 94 | 7.87 | 11 | 7.55 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 8.17 | ||||
| ILSFunctionality | 170 | 7.72 | 28 | 7.57 | 3 | 1 | 94 | 7.82 | 11 | 7.18 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 7.50 | ||||
| PrintFunctionality | 169 | 7.95 | 28 | 7.93 | 3 | 1 | 93 | 7.87 | 11 | 7.73 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 8.67 | ||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 157 | 6.77 | 26 | 6.88 | 3 | 1 | 84 | 6.74 | 11 | 7.00 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 7.33 | ||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 169 | 8.26 | 28 | 8.18 | 3 | 1 | 93 | 8.31 | 11 | 8.09 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 8.00 | ||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 166 | 8.13 | 28 | 8.14 | 3 | 1 | 92 | 8.05 | 10 | 8.00 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 8.83 | ||||
Evergreen
Evergreen, (full product report and narrative comments). an open source ILS implemented primarily in consortia of public libraries received 107 survey responses this year. Of these responses, 85 were from public libraries, 9 from academics, and 9 from consortia. (see charts for library type and library size).
The satisfaction ratings given from libraries using Evergreen have steadily improved since 2012, though there have been some dips along the way. These libraries give higher scores for support than other categories (7.90). Satisfaction with Evergreen's capabilities for managing electronic resources was the lowest (6.11) Among small public libraries, Evergreen received the higher ratings for its print functionality (7.42) than for functionality for electronic resources (6.50).
Libraries using Evergreen rely an a variety of support arrangements. This year, 50 responses were from libraries working with Equinox Software for hosting and support services, 39 were from self-supported consortia, and 6 from consortia contracting with MOBIUS for hosting and support.
The following table presents the 2020 survey results by library type and size
| 2020 Evergreen Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evergreen | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 107 | 7.45 | 6 | 5.83 | 1 | 1 | 71 | 7.58 | 9 | 7.33 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 8.11 | ||||
| ILSFunctionality | 106 | 7.38 | 6 | 5.83 | 1 | 1 | 70 | 7.50 | 9 | 7.56 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 7.89 | ||||
| PrintFunctionality | 107 | 7.78 | 6 | 7.50 | 1 | 1 | 71 | 7.80 | 9 | 7.89 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 7.89 | ||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 107 | 6.11 | 6 | 5.50 | 1 | 1 | 71 | 6.28 | 9 | 6.11 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 5.78 | ||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 102 | 7.90 | 6 | 7.67 | 1 | 1 | 67 | 8.00 | 9 | 7.89 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8.00 | ||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 103 | 7.37 | 6 | 6.67 | 1 | 1 | 70 | 7.27 | 9 | 8.33 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 8.86 | ||||
Follett School Solutions
Follett ranks as the leading provider of technology products for school libraries, with around 70 percent of the public school libraries in the United States using its Destiny products (chart of implementations by library type). OPALS holds a much smaller portion of the market share in the school library sector compared to Destiny, though libraries running OPALS respond enthusiastically to this survey.
Destiny
Follett has developed its Destiny ILS primarily for the PreK-12 school library sector, though it is also used in small public libraries. This year 90 libraries using Destiny responded to the survey, with 63 from schools, 21 from small public libraries, and 6 from small academic libraries. (full product report and narrative comments). It is not surprising that school libraries rated Destiny higher than did public or academic libraries. The general ILS satisfaction rating for school libraries was 7.67 and 6.50 for academics. This product was seen as weakest in functionality for electronic resources (all responses: 6.42; schools: 6.55; academics: 4.33). Destiny has seen steadily rising scores in the survey since 2010, with a spike in 2013. Satisfaction scores in all categories were slightly better than last year.
The following table presents the 2020 survey results by library type and size
| 2020 Destiny Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Destiny | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 90 | 7.50 | 6 | 6.50 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 7.40 | 0 | 0 | 61 | 7.67 | 1 | |||||
| ILSFunctionality | 90 | 7.50 | 6 | 6.50 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 7.50 | 0 | 0 | 61 | 7.72 | 1 | |||||
| PrintFunctionality | 89 | 8.00 | 6 | 7.17 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 7.75 | 0 | 0 | 60 | 8.22 | 1 | |||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 85 | 6.42 | 6 | 4.33 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 6.06 | 0 | 0 | 59 | 6.88 | 1 | |||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 88 | 7.68 | 6 | 7.67 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 7.32 | 0 | 0 | 60 | 7.90 | 1 | |||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 90 | 7.49 | 6 | 6.33 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 6.80 | 0 | 0 | 61 | 7.89 | 1 | |||||
OPALS
The open source OPALS ILS (full product report and narrative comments) implemented primarily in school libraries (chart of implementations by library type), received its usual enthusiastic response, with 259 libraries using OPALS completing the survey. OPALS was developed and supported by Media Flex, Inc. (view company profile). Many libraries using OPALS receive support services from their district rather than from Media Flex directly. In the state of New York, many of the BOCES provide OPALS for the school libraries they support. This year, 165 responses for OPALS came from school libraries, 8 from consortia, 7 from small public libraries, and 26 from small academic libraries.
OPALS received top ratings in all categories by libraries serving PreK-12 Schools: Overall satisfaction (8.87), ILS functionality (8.74), print functionality (8.93), electronic resource functionality (8.29), and company loyalty (8.72). OPALS also received top ratings in all categories for small academic libraries, though the number of responses was smaller than those from other products.
The following table presents the 2020 survey results by library type and size
| 2020 OPALS Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OPALS | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 259 | 8.83 | 19 | 8.63 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 8.57 | 0 | 0 | 164 | 8.87 | 8 | 9.00 | ||||
| ILSFunctionality | 255 | 8.71 | 19 | 8.47 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 8.43 | 0 | 0 | 161 | 8.74 | 8 | 8.50 | ||||
| PrintFunctionality | 258 | 8.89 | 19 | 8.79 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 8.57 | 0 | 0 | 164 | 8.93 | 8 | 8.75 | ||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 245 | 8.10 | 18 | 7.78 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 7.57 | 0 | 0 | 160 | 8.29 | 7 | 7.86 | ||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 251 | 8.78 | 19 | 8.74 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 8.29 | 0 | 0 | 158 | 8.80 | 8 | 8.88 | ||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 256 | 8.73 | 19 | 8.84 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 8.14 | 0 | 0 | 163 | 8.72 | 8 | 9.00 | ||||
FOLIO
FOLIO is an open source initiative to create a new library services platform with financial backing from EBSCO Information Systems (vendor profile) with initial development contracted to Index Data, and with the Open Library Environment providing community engagement and educational activities. See FOLIO Crosses New Thresholds published by ALA TechSource for further information on FOLIO.
FOLIO, following a four-year phase of development, saw production implementations beginning in 2019, with additional libraries moving into productin in 2020 and so far in 2021. Although some of these early implementors responded to the survey, the numbers of responses are not yet large enough to fit into the response tables. As larger number of libraries have implemented FOLIO its satisfaction levels can be compared with other products. Until that time, the results of this survey provide some indicators for the level of interest for FOLIO. Of libraries indicating interest in moving to a new automation system, 88 mentioned FOLIO as a candidate. FOLIO was mentioned in 33 narrative comments.
Selected Statistical Tables
Emphasis on Peer Groups
Public, academic, school, and special libraries each have distinct expectations for their automation products. Previous editions of survey report presented results in comprehensive tables that aggregate results given across all types and sizes of libraries. With the increased number of responses, combined with the enrichment of survey responses with demographic data from each responding library from its entry in the libraries.org directory, for the last three years the results have been presented primarily within peer groups. Separate tables are included for the key areas of ILS satisfaction and functionality completeness for public, academic, and school libraries and according to collection size categories.
Tables assembled according to peer groups provide a more fair set comparisons as libraries consider the best products and providers to meet their future automation needs.
This approach enables libraries to make more balanced comparisons and interpretations of the results. Presenting results through amalgamated tables gives a false impression that the products that serve very small libraries perform at a higher level than more sophisticated products designed to serve larger and more complex automation scenarios. Stronger and weaker products emerge more clearly when presented within tables organized by library type and collection size. Examples of the category combination tables are presented below. The interactive version of the survey results dynamically assembles statistical result tables according to any combination of report category, library type, collection size, and country.
Public Libraries
Large Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2020)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Polaris | 25 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 10 | 5 | 8 | 7.48 | 8 | 1.00 | ||||
| Symphony | 29 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 16 | 3 | 8 | 7.41 | 8 | 1.49 | ||||
| Horizon | 12 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 6.75 | 7 | 2.31 | |||||
| Sierra | 21 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 5.67 | 6 | 1.53 | ||
| All Responses | 112 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 13 | 31 | 38 | 15 | 8 | 7.01 | 7 | 0.85 | ||
View report with these selections across multiple years
Large Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2020)
| ILS Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Symphony | 29 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 11 | 3 | 8 | 7.21 | 7 | 1.30 | ||||
| Polaris | 25 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 10 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 6.96 | 7 | 0.80 | |||
| Horizon | 12 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 7 | 6.75 | 7 | 2.02 | ||||||
| Sierra | 21 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 5.81 | 6 | 1.53 | ||||
| All Responses | 112 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 16 | 41 | 28 | 10 | 7 | 6.75 | 7 | 0.76 | |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Large Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2016)
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2020)
| Print Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Polaris | 25 | 1 | 4 | 12 | 8 | 8 | 8.08 | 8 | 1.20 | ||||||
| Symphony | 28 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 13 | 7 | 8 | 7.79 | 8 | 1.32 | |||||
| Horizon | 12 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 8 | 7.67 | 8 | 2.31 | |||||
| Sierra | 21 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 9 | 2 | 8 | 7.00 | 8 | 1.75 | |||||
| All Responses | 111 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 18 | 50 | 25 | 8 | 7.66 | 8 | 0.85 | ||||
View report with these selections across multiple years
Large Public Libraries: effectiveness for electronic resources (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2020)
| Electronic Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Symphony | 29 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 6.38 | 7 | 1.30 | |||
| Horizon | 12 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 5.50 | 6 | 1.44 | ||||
| Polaris | 24 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 2 | 7 | 5.50 | 6 | 0.20 | |||
| Sierra | 21 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4.33 | 5 | 0.65 | |
| All Responses | 110 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 9 | 11 | 16 | 25 | 26 | 14 | 2 | 7 | 5.63 | 6 | 0.38 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Large Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2020)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS Support | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Polaris | 24 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 10 | 9 | 7.67 | 8 | 1.63 | ||||
| Symphony | 29 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 12 | 9 | 8 | 7.66 | 8 | 1.49 | |||||
| Horizon | 12 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 7.50 | 8 | 2.02 | |||||
| Sierra | 20 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 5.65 | 6 | 1.34 | ||
| All Responses | 109 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 12 | 15 | 32 | 34 | 9 | 7.25 | 8 | 0.86 | |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Large Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2020)
| Loyalty to Company Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Polaris | 23 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7.65 | 8 | 1.46 | |||||
| Symphony | 28 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 13 | 6 | 8 | 7.32 | 8 | 1.51 | |||
| Horizon | 12 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 9 | 7.25 | 8 | 2.31 | |||||
| Sierra | 20 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 5.15 | 6 | 1.34 | ||
| All Responses | 108 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 20 | 33 | 26 | 8 | 6.95 | 8 | 0.87 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2020)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 24 | 3 | 12 | 9 | 8 | 8.25 | 8 | 1.84 | |||||||
| Polaris | 57 | 1 | 8 | 16 | 24 | 8 | 8 | 7.53 | 8 | 0.66 | |||||
| Symphony | 77 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 28 | 26 | 9 | 7 | 7.21 | 7 | 0.57 | ||
| Horizon | 27 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 14 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 6.78 | 7 | 1.35 | |||
| Sierra | 50 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 19 | 12 | 2 | 7 | 6.48 | 7 | 0.99 | |
| Library.Solution | 16 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 6.00 | 7 | 0.50 | ||
| All Responses | 321 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 6 | 16 | 32 | 106 | 98 | 51 | 7 | 7.20 | 7 | 0.39 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2020)
| ILS Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 24 | 1 | 6 | 11 | 6 | 8 | 7.92 | 8 | 1.63 | ||||||
| Polaris | 57 | 3 | 6 | 19 | 17 | 12 | 7 | 7.51 | 8 | 0.79 | |||||
| Symphony | 79 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 11 | 22 | 35 | 5 | 8 | 7.20 | 8 | 0.68 | ||
| Horizon | 27 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 8 | 1 | 7 | 7.04 | 7 | 1.35 | |||||
| Sierra | 50 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 17 | 17 | 2 | 7 | 6.82 | 7 | 1.13 | ||
| Library.Solution | 16 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 5.50 | 7 | 0.50 | |||
| All Responses | 322 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 16 | 34 | 106 | 107 | 44 | 8 | 7.20 | 7 | 0.39 | |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2020)
| Print Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 24 | 4 | 7 | 13 | 9 | 8.38 | 9 | 1.63 | |||||||
| Polaris | 57 | 1 | 4 | 12 | 21 | 19 | 8 | 7.93 | 8 | 0.79 | |||||
| Horizon | 27 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 11 | 5 | 8 | 7.56 | 8 | 1.54 | |||||
| Symphony | 79 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 19 | 34 | 14 | 8 | 7.47 | 8 | 0.68 | ||
| Sierra | 50 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 13 | 21 | 7 | 8 | 7.26 | 8 | 1.13 | |||
| Library.Solution | 16 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 8 | 6.31 | 7 | 1.25 | |||
| All Responses | 323 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 12 | 20 | 75 | 125 | 80 | 8 | 7.60 | 8 | 0.45 | |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2020)
| Electronic Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 23 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 7 | 6.61 | 7 | 1.04 | ||||
| Symphony | 75 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 17 | 22 | 16 | 6 | 7 | 6.48 | 7 | 0.69 | |
| Polaris | 57 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 21 | 15 | 9 | 3 | 6 | 6.42 | 6 | 0.79 | ||
| Library.Solution | 16 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 6.06 | 7 | 1.25 | |||
| Horizon | 27 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 5.41 | 6 | 0.77 | |
| Sierra | 50 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 10 | 16 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 5.40 | 6 | 0.85 | |
| All Responses | 317 | 9 | 11 | 12 | 15 | 41 | 76 | 75 | 52 | 26 | 6 | 6.16 | 6 | 0.39 | |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2020)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS Support | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 24 | 2 | 4 | 18 | 9 | 8.67 | 9 | 1.84 | |||||||
| Symphony | 76 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 15 | 22 | 29 | 9 | 7.87 | 8 | 0.69 | ||||
| Horizon | 27 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 7.59 | 8 | 1.35 | |||||
| Polaris | 55 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 16 | 17 | 11 | 8 | 7.36 | 8 | 0.54 | ||||
| Sierra | 49 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 9 | 12 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 5.96 | 6 | 1.14 | |
| Library.Solution | 16 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 8 | 5.94 | 8 | 0.25 | ||||
| All Responses | 313 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 6 | 24 | 37 | 62 | 73 | 98 | 9 | 7.33 | 8 | 0.23 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2020)
| Loyalty to Company Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 23 | 1 | 22 | 9 | 8.96 | 9 | 1.88 | ||||||||
| Polaris | 55 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 15 | 18 | 12 | 8 | 7.44 | 8 | 0.67 | |||
| Symphony | 75 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 19 | 17 | 22 | 9 | 7.13 | 8 | 0.58 | |
| Horizon | 26 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 11 | 4 | 8 | 7.08 | 8 | 1.57 | |||
| Sierra | 50 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 6 | 13 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 6.26 | 7 | 1.13 |
| Library.Solution | 16 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 5.81 | 7 | 0.00 | |
| All Responses | 314 | 8 | 4 | 9 | 2 | 8 | 22 | 29 | 65 | 68 | 99 | 9 | 7.11 | 8 | 0.34 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Small Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2020)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 31 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 20 | 9 | 8.52 | 9 | 1.44 | ||||||
| Atriuum | 31 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 12 | 11 | 8 | 7.94 | 8 | 1.62 | |||||
| Evergreen -- Independent | 14 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 7.79 | 8 | 2.14 | ||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 43 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 12 | 12 | 14 | 9 | 7.72 | 8 | 1.07 | ||||
| Library.Solution | 13 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 7.23 | 7 | 2.22 | ||||||
| Sierra | 25 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 7.08 | 7 | 1.40 | |||
| VERSO | 40 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 13 | 8 | 8 | 7.08 | 8 | 1.26 | |||
| Evergreen -- Equinox Software | 19 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 7.05 | 7 | 1.61 | ||||
| Polaris | 28 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 11 | 4 | 8 | 6.89 | 8 | 0.57 | |||
| Symphony | 49 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 5 | 10 | 13 | 9 | 8 | 6.84 | 7 | 1.29 | ||
| All Responses | 356 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 19 | 31 | 89 | 104 | 94 | 8 | 7.38 | 8 | 0.48 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Small Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2020)
| ILS Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 31 | 1 | 4 | 11 | 15 | 9 | 8.26 | 8 | 1.44 | ||||||
| Evergreen -- Independent | 13 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 7.92 | 8 | 2.50 | ||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 43 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 18 | 11 | 8 | 7.72 | 8 | 1.22 | ||||
| Atriuum | 31 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 9 | 11 | 9 | 7.71 | 8 | 1.62 | |||||
| Library.Solution | 13 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 7.62 | 7 | 2.22 | ||||||
| Sierra | 25 | 4 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 7.52 | 7 | 1.40 | ||||||
| VERSO | 40 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 8 | 13 | 8 | 8 | 7.10 | 8 | 1.11 | ||
| Symphony | 49 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 11 | 12 | 11 | 8 | 6.98 | 7 | 1.29 | ||
| Polaris | 28 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 6.93 | 8 | 0.38 | ||
| Evergreen -- Equinox Software | 19 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 6 | 6.63 | 6 | 1.61 | ||||
| All Responses | 355 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 6 | 12 | 36 | 90 | 109 | 88 | 8 | 7.40 | 8 | 0.48 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2020)
| Print Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 31 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 17 | 9 | 8.42 | 9 | 1.44 | ||||||
| Evergreen -- Independent | 14 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 8.36 | 9 | 2.41 | ||||||
| Atriuum | 31 | 1 | 4 | 13 | 13 | 8 | 8.19 | 8 | 1.62 | ||||||
| Library.Solution | 12 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 8 | 8.00 | 8 | 2.31 | |||||||
| Sierra | 24 | 1 | 6 | 12 | 5 | 8 | 7.83 | 8 | 1.02 | ||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 43 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 12 | 16 | 9 | 7.63 | 8 | 1.22 | |||
| Polaris | 28 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 13 | 7 | 8 | 7.57 | 8 | 1.32 | ||||
| Evergreen -- Equinox Software | 19 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 7.32 | 7 | 1.61 | |||||
| Symphony | 46 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 9 | 11 | 14 | 9 | 7.22 | 8 | 1.33 | |||
| VERSO | 40 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 13 | 10 | 8 | 7.20 | 8 | 1.26 | |||
| All Responses | 351 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 13 | 20 | 75 | 117 | 112 | 8 | 7.65 | 8 | 0.48 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2020)
| Electronic Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 31 | 5 | 10 | 16 | 9 | 8.35 | 9 | 1.44 | |||||||
| Evergreen -- Independent | 14 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 7.00 | 7 | 1.87 | |||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 37 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 10 | 5 | 9 | 7 | 6.65 | 7 | 0.99 | |
| Atriuum | 31 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 11 | 9 | 6.58 | 7 | 1.62 | |||
| Library.Solution | 12 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 6.42 | 7 | 1.44 | ||||
| VERSO | 37 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 6.14 | 7 | 1.15 | |
| Symphony | 44 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 5 | 11 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 6.05 | 7 | 1.06 | |
| Evergreen -- Equinox Software | 19 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 6.00 | 7 | 1.84 | |||
| Sierra | 25 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 5.88 | 6 | 1.00 | ||
| Polaris | 27 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 2 | 8 | 5.67 | 7 | 0.58 | ||
| All Responses | 337 | 15 | 6 | 7 | 15 | 20 | 30 | 47 | 79 | 52 | 66 | 7 | 6.35 | 7 | 0.49 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Small Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2020)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS Support | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 31 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 22 | 9 | 8.55 | 9 | 1.44 | ||||||
| Evergreen -- Independent | 14 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 9 | 8.29 | 9 | 2.14 | |||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 43 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 8 | 27 | 9 | 8.28 | 9 | 1.37 | |||||
| Atriuum | 31 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 17 | 9 | 8.16 | 9 | 1.62 | |||||
| Evergreen -- Equinox Software | 19 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 4 | 8 | 7.68 | 8 | 1.38 | |||||
| Library.Solution | 12 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 7.67 | 8 | 2.60 | |||||
| VERSO | 40 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 10 | 14 | 9 | 7.33 | 8 | 1.42 | ||
| Symphony | 47 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 19 | 8 | 8 | 7.32 | 8 | 1.31 | |||
| Polaris | 25 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 9 | 6.72 | 7 | 0.40 | |
| Sierra | 22 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 6.32 | 7 | 1.28 | ||||
| All Responses | 347 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 20 | 25 | 54 | 87 | 136 | 9 | 7.55 | 8 | 0.48 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Small Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2020)
| Loyalty to Company Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 31 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 21 | 9 | 8.32 | 9 | 1.26 | ||||||
| Evergreen -- Independent | 14 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 8.14 | 9 | 2.41 | ||||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 43 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 7 | 25 | 9 | 8.09 | 9 | 0.91 | ||||
| Atriuum | 30 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 17 | 9 | 7.77 | 9 | 1.64 | ||||
| Library.Solution | 13 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 9 | 7.31 | 7 | 2.50 | ||||
| VERSO | 39 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 7.08 | 8 | 1.44 | ||
| Evergreen -- Equinox Software | 18 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 6.94 | 7 | 1.65 | ||||
| Sierra | 25 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 6.92 | 7 | 1.40 | ||||
| Symphony | 48 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 12 | 10 | 12 | 7 | 6.90 | 7 | 1.30 | |
| Polaris | 28 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 9 | 9 | 6.75 | 7 | 0.00 | ||
| All Responses | 350 | 10 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 11 | 16 | 22 | 83 | 61 | 136 | 9 | 7.36 | 8 | 0.48 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Very Small Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2020)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 47 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 33 | 9 | 8.62 | 9 | 1.31 | ||||||
| Atriuum | 49 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 13 | 26 | 9 | 8.24 | 9 | 1.29 | |||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 34 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 11 | 14 | 9 | 7.85 | 8 | 1.54 | ||||
| Evergreen -- Equinox Software | 14 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 8 | 7.71 | 8 | 2.41 | |||||
| Polaris | 23 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 7.65 | 8 | 1.88 | |||||
| Symphony | 23 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 7.39 | 7 | 1.46 | |||||
| VERSO | 76 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 19 | 23 | 16 | 8 | 7.24 | 8 | 1.03 | |||
| Destiny | 16 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 7.19 | 7 | 2.25 | ||||
| Sierra | 23 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 9 | 5 | 1 | 7 | 6.61 | 7 | 1.67 | ||||
| All Responses | 366 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 8 | 24 | 24 | 70 | 93 | 139 | 9 | 7.64 | 8 | 0.47 | |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Very Small Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2020)
| ILS Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 46 | 1 | 1 | 17 | 27 | 9 | 8.50 | 9 | 1.33 | ||||||
| Atriuum | 47 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 15 | 23 | 9 | 8.19 | 8 | 1.17 | |||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 34 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 12 | 13 | 9 | 7.85 | 8 | 1.37 | ||||
| Evergreen -- Equinox Software | 14 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 8 | 7.71 | 8 | 2.14 | ||||||
| Symphony | 23 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 7.65 | 8 | 1.46 | ||||||
| Polaris | 22 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 7.50 | 8 | 1.71 | ||||
| Destiny | 16 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 7.31 | 8 | 2.25 | ||||
| VERSO | 76 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 16 | 25 | 17 | 8 | 7.22 | 8 | 1.03 | ||
| Sierra | 23 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 9 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 6.61 | 7 | 1.67 | |||
| All Responses | 361 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 10 | 17 | 24 | 60 | 114 | 126 | 9 | 7.63 | 8 | 0.42 | |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Very Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2020)
| Print Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 46 | 2 | 1 | 13 | 30 | 9 | 8.50 | 9 | 1.33 | ||||||
| Atriuum | 46 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 10 | 21 | 9 | 7.89 | 8 | 1.33 | ||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 33 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 8 | 17 | 9 | 7.88 | 9 | 1.57 | |||||
| Evergreen -- Equinox Software | 14 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 7.86 | 8 | 2.41 | |||||
| Destiny | 16 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 9 | 7.69 | 8 | 2.25 | ||||||
| Polaris | 23 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 9 | 7.61 | 8 | 1.88 | ||||
| Symphony | 23 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 7.57 | 8 | 1.46 | |||||
| VERSO | 74 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 14 | 26 | 19 | 8 | 7.42 | 8 | 0.93 | |||
| Sierra | 22 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 7 | 2 | 7 | 6.82 | 7 | 1.71 | ||
| All Responses | 357 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 12 | 17 | 18 | 60 | 101 | 140 | 9 | 7.68 | 8 | 0.48 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Very Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2020)
| Electronic Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 46 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 13 | 23 | 9 | 7.89 | 9 | 1.33 | |||
| Atriuum | 43 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 8 | 12 | 13 | 9 | 7.26 | 8 | 1.22 | ||||
| Symphony | 21 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 7.10 | 8 | 1.96 | |||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 31 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 12 | 9 | 7.03 | 8 | 0.72 | |
| Polaris | 23 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 6.83 | 8 | 1.46 | |||
| VERSO | 71 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 12 | 18 | 16 | 8 | 6.66 | 7 | 0.95 | |||
| Evergreen -- Equinox Software | 14 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 8 | 6.50 | 8 | 2.41 | ||||
| Destiny | 13 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 5.85 | 7 | 2.50 | |||
| Sierra | 23 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 5.65 | 6 | 1.25 | ||
| All Responses | 343 | 16 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 21 | 38 | 29 | 47 | 75 | 104 | 9 | 6.83 | 8 | 0.43 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Very Small Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2020)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS Support | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 46 | 3 | 1 | 8 | 34 | 9 | 8.52 | 9 | 1.33 | ||||||
| Atriuum | 49 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 34 | 9 | 8.45 | 9 | 1.29 | |||||
| Evergreen -- Equinox Software | 14 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 8.29 | 9 | 2.41 | ||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 33 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 19 | 9 | 8.15 | 9 | 1.39 | ||||
| VERSO | 75 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 28 | 27 | 8 | 7.73 | 8 | 0.92 | ||
| Symphony | 21 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 9 | 7.52 | 8 | 1.53 | |||||
| Polaris | 21 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 7.48 | 8 | 1.96 | |||
| Destiny | 15 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 7.33 | 8 | 2.32 | ||||
| Sierra | 22 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 6 | 6.32 | 6 | 1.71 | ||||
| All Responses | 356 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 7 | 16 | 29 | 37 | 91 | 165 | 9 | 7.79 | 8 | 0.48 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Very Small Public Libraries: Company loyalty (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2020)
| Loyalty to Company Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Atriuum | 48 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 8 | 32 | 9 | 8.40 | 9 | 1.30 | |||||
| Apollo | 47 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 33 | 9 | 8.34 | 9 | 1.31 | ||||
| Evergreen -- Equinox Software | 14 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 8 | 8.14 | 8 | 2.41 | ||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 32 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 12 | 9 | 7.50 | 8 | 1.41 | |||
| Symphony | 23 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 8 | 7 | 7.26 | 7 | 1.46 | ||||
| VERSO | 75 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 15 | 14 | 21 | 9 | 6.87 | 7 | 0.92 |
| Destiny | 16 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 9 | 6.81 | 7 | 2.25 | ||||
| Polaris | 23 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 9 | 6.65 | 7 | 1.88 | ||
| Sierra | 23 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 6.30 | 6 | 1.67 | ||||
| All Responses | 361 | 10 | 2 | 8 | 2 | 12 | 30 | 27 | 55 | 67 | 148 | 9 | 7.30 | 8 | 0.47 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
All Public Libraries: General ILS satisfaction (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (2020)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 84 | 2 | 2 | 22 | 58 | 9 | 8.60 | 9 | 0.98 | ||||||
| Atriuum | 83 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 25 | 39 | 9 | 8.13 | 8 | 0.99 | ||||
| Evergreen -- Independent | 31 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 14 | 9 | 8.13 | 8 | 1.26 | ||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 107 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 21 | 37 | 38 | 9 | 7.82 | 8 | 0.87 | ||
| Polaris | 136 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 12 | 34 | 52 | 27 | 8 | 7.43 | 8 | 0.43 | |
| Destiny | 20 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 8 | 9 | 7.40 | 8 | 2.01 | ||||
| Evergreen -- Equinox Software | 42 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 11 | 14 | 7 | 8 | 7.31 | 8 | 1.39 | ||||
| Spydus | 22 | 1 | 15 | 5 | 1 | 7 | 7.27 | 7 | 1.49 | ||||||
| VERSO | 119 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 8 | 12 | 29 | 36 | 25 | 8 | 7.19 | 8 | 0.83 | ||
| Symphony | 185 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 17 | 18 | 54 | 59 | 29 | 8 | 7.16 | 7 | 0.37 |
| Horizon | 54 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 24 | 14 | 6 | 7 | 7.06 | 7 | 1.09 | ||
| Library.Solution | 39 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 12 | 10 | 7 | 7 | 6.97 | 7 | 1.28 | ||
| Carl.X | 19 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 6.95 | 7 | 2.06 | |||
| V-smart | 14 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 6.86 | 7 | 1.87 | |||||
| Sierra | 121 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 10 | 20 | 43 | 25 | 8 | 7 | 6.50 | 7 | 0.64 | |
| All Responses | 1184 | 4 | 4 | 14 | 19 | 24 | 63 | 102 | 304 | 344 | 306 | 8 | 7.39 | 8 | 0.26 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
All Public Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (2020)
| ILS Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 83 | 2 | 6 | 30 | 45 | 9 | 8.40 | 9 | 0.99 | ||||||
| Evergreen -- Independent | 30 | 2 | 7 | 7 | 14 | 9 | 8.10 | 8 | 1.28 | ||||||
| Atriuum | 81 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 14 | 24 | 36 | 9 | 8.01 | 8 | 0.89 | ||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 107 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 23 | 42 | 31 | 8 | 7.74 | 8 | 0.77 | ||
| Destiny | 20 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 8 | 9 | 7.50 | 8 | 2.01 | ||||
| Polaris | 135 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 13 | 38 | 41 | 29 | 8 | 7.30 | 8 | 0.34 |
| Spydus | 22 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 7.23 | 7 | 1.49 | |||||
| VERSO | 119 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 12 | 26 | 38 | 26 | 8 | 7.19 | 8 | 0.83 | |
| Symphony | 187 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 10 | 25 | 48 | 68 | 26 | 8 | 7.19 | 8 | 0.44 | ||
| Evergreen -- Equinox Software | 42 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 18 | 3 | 8 | 7.17 | 8 | 1.23 | ||||
| V-smart | 14 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 7.14 | 7 | 1.60 | |||||
| Horizon | 54 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 22 | 14 | 6 | 7 | 7.13 | 7 | 0.95 | ||||
| Library.Solution | 39 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 12 | 11 | 7 | 7 | 6.87 | 7 | 1.28 | ||
| Sierra | 121 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 16 | 43 | 33 | 10 | 7 | 6.78 | 7 | 0.73 | |
| Carl.X | 18 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 7 | 6.56 | 7 | 2.12 | |||
| All Responses | 1179 | 1 | 7 | 13 | 21 | 27 | 51 | 111 | 301 | 373 | 274 | 8 | 7.36 | 8 | 0.23 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
All Public Libraries: Overall ILS Support (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (2020)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS Support | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 83 | 4 | 3 | 15 | 61 | 9 | 8.55 | 9 | 0.99 | ||||||
| Atriuum | 83 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 8 | 16 | 53 | 9 | 8.31 | 9 | 0.99 | ||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 106 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 22 | 66 | 9 | 8.26 | 9 | 0.78 | |||
| Evergreen -- Independent | 27 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 14 | 9 | 8.22 | 9 | 1.15 | ||||||
| Evergreen -- Equinox Software | 42 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 16 | 14 | 8 | 7.88 | 8 | 1.39 | |||||
| Carl.X | 19 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 9 | 7.74 | 8 | 2.06 | ||||
| Horizon | 53 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 19 | 18 | 8 | 7.72 | 8 | 0.96 | |||
| Symphony | 180 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 18 | 35 | 59 | 55 | 8 | 7.64 | 8 | 0.45 | ||
| VERSO | 118 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 9 | 14 | 38 | 42 | 9 | 7.59 | 8 | 0.83 | ||
| Destiny | 19 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 7.32 | 8 | 2.06 | ||||
| Polaris | 128 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 13 | 11 | 24 | 34 | 37 | 9 | 7.31 | 8 | 0.71 | |
| Library.Solution | 38 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 11 | 12 | 9 | 7.03 | 8 | 1.30 | ||
| V-smart | 14 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 6.86 | 7 | 0.80 | ||||
| Spydus | 20 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 6.75 | 7 | 0.89 | ||||
| Sierra | 115 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 12 | 35 | 23 | 16 | 11 | 6 | 6.08 | 6 | 0.75 |
| All Responses | 1153 | 5 | 8 | 17 | 20 | 23 | 65 | 107 | 172 | 288 | 447 | 9 | 7.55 | 8 | 0.27 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Academic Libraries
Large Academic Libraries: General ILS satisfaction (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2020)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Alma | 81 | 2 | 4 | 12 | 40 | 20 | 3 | 7 | 6.98 | 7 | 0.78 | ||||
| Sierra | 27 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 5.22 | 6 | 1.15 | ||
| All Responses | 165 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 7 | 19 | 25 | 62 | 33 | 6 | 7 | 6.40 | 7 | 0.54 | |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Large Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2020)
| ILS Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Alma | 81 | 1 | 5 | 10 | 33 | 28 | 4 | 7 | 7.14 | 7 | 0.89 | ||||
| Sierra | 27 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 5.22 | 6 | 1.15 | ||
| All Responses | 165 | 1 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 19 | 30 | 48 | 42 | 5 | 7 | 6.36 | 7 | 0.62 | |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Large Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2020)
| Print Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Alma | 80 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 22 | 38 | 8 | 8 | 7.40 | 8 | 0.89 | |||
| Sierra | 27 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 4 | 8 | 7.11 | 8 | 1.35 | |||
| All Responses | 164 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 18 | 42 | 66 | 26 | 8 | 7.39 | 8 | 0.62 | ||
View report with these selections across multiple years
Large Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2020)
| Electronic Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Alma | 81 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 20 | 27 | 18 | 6 | 7 | 6.75 | 7 | 0.89 | ||
| Sierra | 27 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3.70 | 4 | 1.15 | |
| All Responses | 163 | 5 | 8 | 10 | 15 | 8 | 18 | 33 | 33 | 25 | 8 | 6 | 5.50 | 6 | 0.63 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Large Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2020)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS Support | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Alma | 81 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 11 | 20 | 29 | 8 | 2 | 7 | 6.10 | 6 | 0.78 | |
| Sierra | 27 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 5.63 | 6 | 1.35 | |
| All Responses | 164 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 17 | 31 | 48 | 26 | 20 | 7 | 6.45 | 7 | 0.55 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Large Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2020)
| Loyalty to Company Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Alma | 80 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 21 | 26 | 17 | 8 | 7.19 | 8 | 0.78 |
| Sierra | 27 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 3.93 | 4 | 1.15 |
| All Responses | 163 | 13 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 17 | 13 | 32 | 37 | 32 | 8 | 6.25 | 7 | 0.55 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2020)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| WorldShare Management Services | 33 | 8 | 14 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 7.24 | 7 | 1.39 | ||||||
| Alma | 103 | 1 | 5 | 17 | 42 | 33 | 5 | 7 | 7.13 | 7 | 0.89 | ||||
| Symphony | 24 | 2 | 3 | 11 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 7.08 | 7 | 1.84 | |||||
| Sierra | 45 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 6 | 11 | 11 | 8 | 6 | 5.82 | 6 | 0.75 | |||
| All Responses | 259 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 16 | 45 | 94 | 61 | 18 | 7 | 6.68 | 7 | 0.50 | |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2020)
| ILS Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Alma | 102 | 3 | 12 | 37 | 40 | 10 | 8 | 7.41 | 7 | 0.79 | |||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 33 | 3 | 2 | 11 | 14 | 3 | 8 | 7.36 | 8 | 1.39 | |||||
| Symphony | 24 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 7 | 7.04 | 7 | 1.63 | ||||
| Sierra | 45 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 13 | 12 | 7 | 1 | 6 | 6.18 | 6 | 0.89 | ||
| All Responses | 258 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 7 | 18 | 41 | 82 | 74 | 22 | 7 | 6.84 | 7 | 0.37 | |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2020)
| Print Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Symphony | 24 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 7.79 | 8 | 1.84 | ||||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 33 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 13 | 7 | 8 | 7.67 | 8 | 1.39 | |||||
| Sierra | 46 | 3 | 6 | 10 | 17 | 10 | 8 | 7.54 | 8 | 1.03 | |||||
| Alma | 101 | 4 | 9 | 32 | 42 | 14 | 8 | 7.52 | 8 | 0.90 | |||||
| All Responses | 257 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 29 | 65 | 98 | 51 | 8 | 7.52 | 8 | 0.50 | ||
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2020)
| Electronic Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Alma | 101 | 1 | 4 | 20 | 37 | 35 | 4 | 7 | 7.12 | 7 | 0.70 | ||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 33 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 14 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 7.00 | 7 | 1.22 | ||||
| Symphony | 23 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 5.57 | 6 | 1.88 | ||
| Sierra | 46 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4.74 | 5 | 1.03 |
| All Responses | 257 | 11 | 2 | 13 | 12 | 16 | 25 | 44 | 73 | 49 | 12 | 7 | 5.95 | 7 | 0.25 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2020)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS Support | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Symphony | 24 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 11 | 9 | 8.04 | 8 | 1.84 | ||||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 32 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 11 | 7 | 8 | 7.44 | 8 | 1.24 | ||||
| Alma | 103 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 18 | 19 | 24 | 23 | 4 | 7 | 6.23 | 6 | 0.79 | |
| Sierra | 46 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 7 | 9 | 2 | 8 | 5.43 | 6 | 0.74 |
| All Responses | 254 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 11 | 16 | 28 | 34 | 56 | 60 | 36 | 8 | 6.52 | 7 | 0.56 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2020)
| Loyalty to Company Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Alma | 98 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 12 | 21 | 35 | 17 | 8 | 7.23 | 8 | 0.91 | |||
| WorldShare Management Services | 32 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 11 | 7 | 8 | 7.13 | 8 | 1.59 | ||
| Symphony | 24 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 6.92 | 8 | 1.84 | ||
| Sierra | 46 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 2 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 5.07 | 5 | 0.74 |
| All Responses | 252 | 11 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 11 | 29 | 22 | 46 | 66 | 50 | 8 | 6.57 | 7 | 0.50 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Smaller Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2020)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 19 | 2 | 3 | 14 | 9 | 8.63 | 9 | 2.06 | |||||||
| KOHA | 12 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 7.83 | 8 | 2.02 | |||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 28 | 1 | 11 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7.71 | 8 | 1.70 | ||||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 40 | 2 | 8 | 13 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 7.25 | 7 | 1.11 | |||||
| Alma | 78 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 39 | 16 | 9 | 7 | 7.12 | 7 | 0.79 | |||
| Sierra | 47 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 17 | 10 | 2 | 7 | 6.43 | 7 | 1.17 | ||
| Symphony | 42 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 11 | 11 | 3 | 7 | 6.10 | 7 | 1.08 |
| All Responses | 394 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 14 | 9 | 21 | 47 | 127 | 93 | 68 | 7 | 6.93 | 7 | 0.45 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Smaller Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2020)
| ILS Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 19 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 12 | 9 | 8.47 | 9 | 2.06 | ||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 28 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 7.57 | 8 | 1.70 | |||||
| KOHA | 12 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 9 | 7.33 | 8 | 1.44 | |||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 40 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 10 | 11 | 9 | 8 | 7.33 | 8 | 1.11 | |||
| Alma | 78 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 29 | 22 | 13 | 7 | 7.27 | 7 | 0.79 | |||
| Sierra | 47 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 16 | 10 | 2 | 7 | 6.49 | 7 | 1.17 | ||
| Symphony | 41 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 3 | 6 | 6.39 | 7 | 0.94 | ||
| All Responses | 393 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 13 | 14 | 33 | 53 | 101 | 107 | 63 | 8 | 6.92 | 7 | 0.45 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Smaller Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2020)
| Print Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 19 | 1 | 2 | 16 | 9 | 8.79 | 9 | 2.06 | |||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 28 | 1 | 7 | 11 | 9 | 8 | 7.93 | 8 | 1.70 | ||||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 40 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 17 | 9 | 8 | 7.70 | 8 | 1.11 | |||||
| KOHA | 12 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 7.67 | 8 | 2.02 | ||||||
| Alma | 78 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 22 | 28 | 17 | 8 | 7.54 | 8 | 0.79 | |||
| Sierra | 46 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 25 | 7 | 8 | 7.52 | 8 | 1.18 | ||||
| Symphony | 41 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 6 | 12 | 10 | 8 | 7.12 | 8 | 1.41 | ||
| All Responses | 391 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 9 | 13 | 22 | 86 | 144 | 106 | 8 | 7.58 | 8 | 0.46 | |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Smaller Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2020)
| Electronic Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 18 | 5 | 12 | 1 | 8 | 7.78 | 8 | 1.65 | |||||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 40 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 16 | 9 | 8 | 7.33 | 8 | 0.95 | |||
| KOHA | 12 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 9 | 7.00 | 8 | 1.15 | ||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 26 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 6.88 | 8 | 1.77 | |||
| Alma | 78 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 13 | 27 | 18 | 8 | 7 | 6.86 | 7 | 0.79 | ||
| Sierra | 47 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 5.06 | 5 | 1.17 |
| Symphony | 40 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4.17 | 5 | 0.16 |
| All Responses | 386 | 13 | 17 | 22 | 25 | 20 | 40 | 48 | 77 | 83 | 41 | 8 | 5.90 | 7 | 0.20 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Smaller Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2020)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS Support | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 19 | 5 | 14 | 9 | 8.74 | 9 | 1.84 | ||||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 28 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 13 | 9 | 8.18 | 8 | 1.70 | ||||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 40 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 13 | 12 | 8 | 7.53 | 8 | 1.11 | ||||
| Symphony | 41 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 14 | 9 | 6.90 | 8 | 1.41 | ||
| Sierra | 46 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 9 | 14 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 6.46 | 7 | 1.03 | ||
| KOHA | 12 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 6.42 | 7 | 1.15 | |||
| Alma | 78 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 13 | 14 | 22 | 11 | 8 | 7 | 6.31 | 7 | 0.79 | |
| All Responses | 389 | 3 | 4 | 9 | 12 | 13 | 31 | 40 | 81 | 82 | 114 | 9 | 7.08 | 8 | 0.46 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
Smaller Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2020)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 19 | 2 | 3 | 14 | 9 | 8.63 | 9 | 2.06 | |||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 28 | 1 | 11 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7.71 | 8 | 1.70 | ||||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 40 | 2 | 8 | 13 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 7.25 | 7 | 1.11 | |||||
| Alma | 78 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 39 | 16 | 9 | 7 | 7.12 | 7 | 0.79 | |||
| Sierra | 47 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 17 | 10 | 2 | 7 | 6.43 | 7 | 1.17 | ||
| Symphony | 42 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 11 | 11 | 3 | 7 | 6.10 | 7 | 1.08 |
| All Responses | 393 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 14 | 9 | 21 | 47 | 127 | 93 | 67 | 7 | 6.93 | 7 | 0.45 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
All Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (2020)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 26 | 2 | 5 | 19 | 9 | 8.65 | 9 | 1.77 | |||||||
| Koha -- Independent | 19 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8.00 | 8 | 1.84 | ||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 34 | 1 | 12 | 13 | 8 | 8 | 7.74 | 8 | 1.37 | ||||||
| KOHA | 20 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 9 | 7.50 | 8 | 1.34 | ||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 85 | 2 | 2 | 17 | 33 | 16 | 15 | 7 | 7.18 | 7 | 0.87 | ||||
| Alma | 274 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 37 | 125 | 75 | 18 | 7 | 7.10 | 7 | 0.42 | ||
| VERSO | 13 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 7 | 6.69 | 7 | 2.22 | |||||
| Symphony | 79 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 11 | 24 | 18 | 8 | 7 | 6.43 | 7 | 0.90 |
| Voyager | 23 | 1 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 5 | 5.96 | 6 | 1.25 | |||||
| Sierra | 121 | 2 | 6 | 12 | 5 | 14 | 24 | 34 | 22 | 2 | 7 | 5.92 | 6 | 0.45 | |
| Horizon | 17 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5.88 | 6 | 2.18 | |||
| ALEPH 500 | 28 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 7 | 5.68 | 6 | 0.76 | |
| All Responses | 865 | 4 | 7 | 20 | 31 | 26 | 56 | 121 | 291 | 207 | 102 | 7 | 6.78 | 7 | 0.24 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
All Academic Libraries: General ILS Functionality (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (2020)
| ILS Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 26 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 17 | 9 | 8.54 | 9 | 1.77 | ||||||
| Koha -- Independent | 19 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 9 | 7.89 | 8 | 2.06 | |||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 34 | 1 | 2 | 12 | 13 | 6 | 8 | 7.56 | 8 | 1.37 | |||||
| Alma | 273 | 2 | 1 | 15 | 29 | 104 | 94 | 28 | 7 | 7.29 | 7 | 0.48 | |||
| VERSO | 13 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 7.23 | 8 | 2.22 | |||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 84 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 12 | 23 | 28 | 12 | 8 | 7.21 | 7 | 0.87 | |||
| KOHA | 19 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 7.11 | 7 | 1.38 | ||||
| Symphony | 78 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 17 | 18 | 18 | 8 | 7 | 6.51 | 7 | 0.91 | ||
| Sierra | 121 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 17 | 29 | 34 | 20 | 3 | 7 | 6.11 | 6 | 0.55 | |
| Horizon | 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 5.76 | 6 | 2.18 | |
| Voyager | 23 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 5.57 | 6 | 1.25 | ||||
| ALEPH 500 | 28 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 5.39 | 6 | 0.76 | ||
| All Responses | 861 | 2 | 5 | 18 | 28 | 28 | 72 | 129 | 240 | 238 | 101 | 7 | 6.81 | 7 | 0.27 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
All Academic Libraries: Effectiveness in managing print resources (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (2020)
| Print Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 26 | 1 | 2 | 23 | 9 | 8.85 | 9 | 1.77 | |||||||
| Koha -- Independent | 18 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 9 | 9 | 8.22 | 9 | 2.12 | ||||||
| VERSO | 13 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 8.00 | 8 | 2.50 | ||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 34 | 1 | 7 | 16 | 10 | 8 | 7.97 | 8 | 1.37 | ||||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 85 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 24 | 34 | 18 | 8 | 7.66 | 8 | 0.87 | ||||
| Alma | 271 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 24 | 81 | 111 | 42 | 8 | 7.50 | 8 | 0.49 | ||
| Sierra | 121 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 15 | 21 | 53 | 22 | 8 | 7.45 | 8 | 0.64 | |||
| Horizon | 17 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 7.41 | 7 | 2.18 | |||||
| KOHA | 20 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 7.40 | 8 | 1.57 | |||||
| Symphony | 78 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 12 | 16 | 22 | 21 | 8 | 7.38 | 8 | 0.91 | ||
| Voyager | 23 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 6 | 2 | 7 | 7.09 | 7 | 1.67 | ||||
| ALEPH 500 | 27 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7.00 | 8 | 1.73 | ||
| All Responses | 859 | 3 | 9 | 5 | 13 | 31 | 71 | 204 | 323 | 200 | 8 | 7.54 | 8 | 0.27 | |
View report with these selections across multiple years
All Academic Libraries: Effectiveness in managing electronic resources (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (2020)
| Electronic Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 25 | 6 | 18 | 1 | 8 | 7.80 | 8 | 1.60 | |||||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 85 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 15 | 21 | 26 | 14 | 8 | 7.12 | 7 | 0.76 | ||
| Alma | 270 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 16 | 54 | 96 | 75 | 19 | 7 | 6.96 | 7 | 0.49 | ||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 32 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 6 | 8 | 6.66 | 8 | 1.41 | |
| Koha | 19 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 6.32 | 7 | 1.38 | ||
| Koha -- Independent | 18 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 5.83 | 6 | 2.12 | ||
| VERSO | 12 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 5.50 | 7 | 2.02 | ||||
| Symphony | 75 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 10 | 4 | 10 | 12 | 13 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 4.68 | 5 | 0.69 |
| Sierra | 122 | 4 | 5 | 15 | 15 | 18 | 20 | 15 | 17 | 10 | 3 | 5 | 4.66 | 5 | 0.63 |
| Voyager | 23 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 4.26 | 5 | 0.63 | |
| ALEPH 500 | 28 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3.79 | 3 | 0.57 | ||
| Horizon | 17 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3.71 | 3 | 2.18 | |
| All Responses | 850 | 30 | 28 | 45 | 52 | 46 | 87 | 131 | 192 | 175 | 64 | 7 | 5.88 | 7 | 0.27 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
All Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with ILS support (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (2020)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS Support | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 25 | 6 | 19 | 9 | 8.76 | 9 | 1.80 | ||||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 34 | 2 | 4 | 13 | 15 | 9 | 8.21 | 8 | 1.37 | ||||||
| Horizon | 17 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 10 | 9 | 7.94 | 9 | 2.18 | |||||
| VERSO | 13 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 7.77 | 8 | 1.94 | ||||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 84 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 21 | 28 | 21 | 8 | 7.43 | 8 | 0.87 | |
| Symphony | 77 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 14 | 18 | 30 | 9 | 7.38 | 8 | 1.03 | |
| Koha -- Independent | 17 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 7.18 | 7 | 1.94 | |||||
| Voyager | 22 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 6.95 | 7 | 1.71 | |||
| ALEPH 500 | 26 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 6.62 | 7 | 1.57 | |||
| Alma | 274 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 19 | 42 | 57 | 78 | 44 | 17 | 7 | 6.26 | 7 | 0.42 | |
| Sierra | 121 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 15 | 23 | 28 | 18 | 9 | 7 | 5.84 | 6 | 0.45 |
| KOHA | 18 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 9 | 5.61 | 6 | 0.94 | ||
| All Responses | 852 | 7 | 13 | 20 | 26 | 42 | 78 | 110 | 196 | 183 | 177 | 7 | 6.78 | 7 | 0.24 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
All Academic Libraries: Company Loyalty (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (2020)
| Loyalty to Company Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 26 | 5 | 21 | 9 | 8.81 | 9 | 1.77 | ||||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 34 | 1 | 5 | 13 | 15 | 9 | 8.21 | 8 | 1.54 | ||||||
| VERSO | 13 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 8 | 7.46 | 8 | 2.22 | |||||
| Alma | 267 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 22 | 26 | 67 | 88 | 48 | 8 | 7.15 | 8 | 0.43 |
| WorldShare Management Services | 84 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 7 | 21 | 18 | 23 | 9 | 7.05 | 7 | 0.87 |
| Voyager | 22 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 7 | 6.82 | 7 | 1.49 | ||
| Horizon | 17 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 6.76 | 8 | 2.18 | ||||
| ALEPH 500 | 28 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6.46 | 7 | 1.51 | |||
| Symphony | 79 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 5 | 12 | 19 | 19 | 8 | 6.44 | 7 | 1.01 |
| Koha -- Independent | 17 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 6.12 | 7 | 1.94 | |||
| KOHA | 17 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 5.35 | 7 | 0.49 | ||
| Sierra | 122 | 13 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 14 | 23 | 16 | 14 | 12 | 12 | 5 | 4.99 | 5 | 0.45 |
| All Responses | 847 | 44 | 21 | 15 | 24 | 30 | 85 | 68 | 158 | 204 | 198 | 8 | 6.61 | 7 | 0.24 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
School Libraries
School Libraries: Overall ILS Satisfaction (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: School) (2020)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 164 | 3 | 15 | 146 | 9 | 8.87 | 9 | 0.70 | |||||||
| Destiny | 61 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 18 | 13 | 23 | 9 | 7.67 | 8 | 1.15 | ||
| All Responses | 274 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 32 | 38 | 189 | 9 | 8.39 | 9 | 0.54 | ||
View report with these selections across multiple years
School Libraries: General ILS Functionality (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: School) (2020)
| ILS Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 161 | 3 | 36 | 122 | 9 | 8.74 | 9 | 0.71 | |||||||
| Destiny | 61 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 17 | 15 | 23 | 9 | 7.72 | 8 | 1.15 | ||
| All Responses | 271 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 27 | 68 | 162 | 9 | 8.32 | 9 | 0.55 | ||
View report with these selections across multiple years
School Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: School) (2020)
| Print Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 164 | 1 | 10 | 153 | 9 | 8.93 | 9 | 0.70 | |||||||
| Destiny | 60 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 20 | 30 | 9 | 8.22 | 9 | 1.16 | |||||
| All Responses | 273 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 47 | 206 | 9 | 8.62 | 9 | 0.54 | |||
View report with these selections across multiple years
School Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: School) (2020)
| Electronic Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 160 | 1 | 1 | 23 | 61 | 74 | 9 | 8.29 | 8 | 0.71 | |||||
| Destiny | 59 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 15 | 8 | 17 | 9 | 6.88 | 7 | 0.91 | ||
| All Responses | 266 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 11 | 16 | 47 | 78 | 99 | 9 | 7.61 | 8 | 0.55 |
View report with these selections across multiple years
School Libraries: Company Loyalty (2020)
Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: School) (2020)
| Loyalty to Company Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 163 | 1 | 2 | 32 | 128 | 9 | 8.72 | 9 | 0.70 | ||||||
| Destiny | 61 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 14 | 31 | 9 | 7.89 | 9 | 1.15 | ||||
| All Responses | 272 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 13 | 53 | 188 | 9 | 8.33 | 9 | 0.55 | |
View report with these selections across multiple years
An interactive version of the statistical reports, is available which includes the ability to view the responses for each of the ILS products, along with the redacted comments.
ILS Turnover Reports
Another set of reports provide information on the ILS products that were selected during 2020 by libraries registered in libraries.org. [Note: these numbers are not comprehensive.]
The ILS Turn-over report counts and lists the automation systems recorded as selected or installed in 2020 with a breakdown of the previous systems displaced.
The Reverse ILS Turn-over report. counts and lists the automation systems recorded as replaced in 2020 with a breakdown of the new systems that were selected
Details about The Survey
The survey instrument included five numerical ratings, three yes/no responses, and two short response fields, and a text field for general comments. The numeric rating fields allow responses from 0 through 9. Each scale was labeled to indicate the meaning of the numeric selection.
Four of the numeric questions probe at the level of satisfaction with and loyalty to the company or organization that provides its current automation system:
- How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System?
- How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library?
- How satisfied is the library overall with the company from which you purchased your current ILS?
- Has the customer support for this ILS gotten better or gotten worse in the last year?
- How satisfied is this library with this company’s customer support services?
- How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company?
A yes/no question asks whether the library is considering migrating to a new ILS and a fill-in text field provides the opportunity to provide specific systems under consideration. Another yes/no question asks whether the automation system currently in use was installed on schedule.
Given the recent interest in new search interfaces, a yes/no question asks “Is the library currently considering a search interface for its collection that is separate from the ILS?” and a fill-in form to indicate products under consideration.
The survey includes two questions that aim to gauge interest in open source ILS, a numerical rating that asks “How likely is it that this library would consider implementing and open source ILS?” and a fill-in text field for indicating products under consideration.
The survey concludes with a text box inviting comments.
View the survey. (This version of the survey does not accept or record response data.)
In order to correlate the responses with particular automation systems and companies, the survey links to entries in the libraries.org directory of libraries. Each entry in libraries.org indicates the automation system currently in use as well as data on the type of library, location, collection size, and other factors that might be of potential interest. In order to fill out the survey, the responder had first to find their library in libraries.org and then press a button that launched the response form. Some potential respondents indicated that found this process complex.
The link between the libraries.org entry and the survey automatically populated fields for the library name and current automation system and provided access to other data elements about the library as needed. The report on survey response demographics, for example, relies on data from libraries.org.
A number of methods were used to solicit responses to the survey. E-mail messages were sent to library-oriented mailing lists such as WEB4LIB and PUBLIB. Invitational messages were also sent to many lists for specific automation systems and companies. Where contact information was available in libraries.org, and automated script produced e-mail messages with a direct link to the survey response form for that library.
The survey attempted to limit responses to one per library. This restriction was imposed to attempt to sway the respondents to reflect the broad perceptions of their institution rather than their personal opinions.
The survey instrument was created using the same infrastructure as the Library Technology Guides web site—a custom interface written in perl using MySQL to store the data, with ODBC as the connection layer. Access to the raw responses is controlled through a user name and password available only to the author. Scripts were written to provide public access to the survey in a way that does not expose individual responses.
In order to provide access to the comments without violating the stated agreement not to attribute individual responses to any given institution or individual, an addition field was created for “edited comments.” This field was manually populated with text selected from the “comments” text provided by the respondent. Any information that might identify the individual or library was edited out, with an ellipse indicating the removed text. Comments that only explained a response or described the circumstances of the library were not transferred to the Edited Comments field.
Statistics
To analyze the results, a few scripts were written to summarize, analyze, and present the responses.
In order to avoid making generalizations based on inadequate sample sizes, the processing scripts included a threshold variable that would only present results when the number of responses exceeded the specified value. The threshold was set to a value of 20.
For each of the survey questions that involve a numeric rating, a set of subroutines was created to calculate and display simple statistics.
- Responses indicates the number of survey responses that made a selection for this question.
- A Response Distribution array lists the number of responses for each possible value from 0-9.
- The Mode indicates the numeric response that received the most selections.
- The Mean is the average response, calculated by adding together all the responses and dividing by the Responses value, rounding to two significant decimal places.
- The Median is the middle response, calculated by placing each of the responses in a sorted array and selecting the middle value.
- The Standard Deviation was calculated by subtracting each response value from the mean, squaring the difference, summing the squares and dividing by the number of responses to determine the variance. The standard deviation is the square root of the variance.
The "survey-report-by-category.pl" script processes each of the numerical ratings, displaying each of the statistical components listed above for each product that received responses above the threshold value. This report provides a convenient way to compare the performance of each ILS product for the selected question. The report sorts the statistics for each product in descending order of the mean. The report categories available correspond to the survey questions with numerical scale responses.
The “survey-product-report.pl” script provides the results for each of the ILS products mentioned in the responses. This report also provides the statistical components for each of the numeric question. It also provides the percentage of yes responses to the two yes/no questions:
- Is this library currently considering migrating to a new ILS?
- Is this library currently considering acquiring a search interface for its collection that is separate from the ILS? The report then lists the “EditedComments” text.
[The text of this section mostly replicates what appeared in the 2007 version of this article. For for both editions of the survey I followed the same methodology for collection and and statistical analysis.]
Caveat
As noted with previous editions of the survey, libraries evaluating products should not read too much into the survey results. Individuals responding to the survey provide their subjective impressions to fairly general questions. Although the survey instructions encourage responders to consider the broader institutional perceptions, it’s usually the case that multiple opinions prevail within any given library. Although the survey attempts to provide useful information about the experiences of libraries with their current integrated library systems and the organizations that provide support, it should not be used as a definitive assessment tool.