Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Perceptions 2020: An International Survey of Library Automation

Narrative Comments

This page lists the narrative of comments given by individuals responding to the 2020 library automation perceptions survey. Comments have been redacted to remove content that identifies the indivudual or institution. To place the comments in perspective, the library type, size of collection, and the rating given for overall ILS satisfaction is provided.

There were 544 narrative comments given regarding 83 different products:

AbsysNet

top

La biblioteca utiliza aplicaciones de software libre para otras funciones: GIMP, Libre Office, Wordpress... y diseña sus contenidos web con un ordenador instalado con Linux Mint. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)


Accessit Library

top

Our only real complaint with AccessIt is that the report function needs to be more robust. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)


ALEPH 500

top

We are having a tender for a new LSP including a discovery interface. We'll adopt the winner but I can't say yet who this will be. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Since we are legislatively mandated to be in a shared bib environment with the other 39 Florida College and University libraries, we can't implement an ILS on our own. My understanding is the consortium did investigate at least one open source option for the upcoming IILS migration, but there is not one available currently that can handle a system as complex as this group of colleges and universities. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

[...] is using FOLIO in production for our ERM. We're using the Users, Settings, Licenses, and Organizations apps. We plan to add more FOLIO apps in production over the coming year, including Agreements, eUsage, Courses, and Inventory (for Courses). (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Respondo esta encuesta de acuerdo a mi práctica bibliotecaria día a día y a las conversaciones entre colegas y las evaluaciones que hemos hecho previamente. Dicho lo anterior, esta no es una respuesta con datos expuestos desde la unidad, ni me abogo su representación oficial, pero creo pertinente participar en el estudio ya que es elemental conocer los alcances y mediciones de la automatización de Bibliotecas en general, con mayor razón si hay baja interacción y autonomía de los usuarios para tal escenario en esta u otra Biblioteca. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

We don't work directly with Ex Libris for Aleph support. We work with our consortium. Thus the two unanswered questions are not applicable to us. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 1)

Rero ILS as Open Source may be a bit misleading. The Rero system is heavily customized for a library system in Switzerland, but the code is open and available. Customization for the library using the software would be necessary. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)


Alma

top

You should start asking Libraries about their Institutional repositories as well. The question above about "Approximate number of items in the library's collection" - you should clarify this - I'm not sure if you are referring to Electronic collections as well as to physical ones. I wrote only the physical one, but most of our inventory is electronic, so asking about the physical collection gives partial info. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Open Source ILS options are interesting and potentially "better" for the services we would like to provide, but we don't have the staff time to administer open source, we rely too heavily on consortial and vendor support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are currently part of a statewide community college consortium. This benefits us because we are able to provide a more sophisticated system for our students and we benefit from the expertise of larger colleges in our consortium. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We go live w/ Alma in late July 2021 (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

As part of the [...] system we are enjoying the Resource Sharing options provided within Alma and having a truely "Shared" catalog for the first time for the 63 institutions continues to be beneficial. I don't see this type of functionality yet in any OS system, and the entire [...] system would have to make that change. We have another 4 years on our current contract. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are part of the [...] and, although [...]is not migrating away from Alma/Primo, we are in the process of implementing a systemwide Alma/Primo VE instance. 5 of the campuses are currently on Alma/Primo while 5 of the campuses are migrating from some other system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are tied to our consortium's ILS choice at the moment, and have little voice in the choice made for all libraries. Alma is too complicated and intricate for our size of staff, workflows are not easily adapted to one-person departments, and it is too elaborate for small libraries like ours. Monthly updates are too frequent when they introduce major changes, and too frequently introduce a feature that is only half-baked and still has errors. The web-based system still has a lot of lag between selection and display of information--it is not as fast as a software program. It is also very clicky with too few keyboard shortcuts; I should ask my consortium whether they will have a group discount on carpal tunnel surgery for all the mouse moving that Alma requires. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

I'm not sure whether to answer the discovery service questions as they pertain to our local Blacklight catalog or to Summon, which we use for article-level discovery and have partly integrated into the Blacklight catalog. (Summon results appear in an initial bento view branded as Articles+ and then if you want more details, you click through to the Summon interface.) I'm not sure I'd rate Summon any better when it comes to satisfying our diverse user audiences! I've probably noted in previous years that satisfaction with Alma varies across different departments; there remain some persistently annoying problems (like printing routing slips from different desks) that we've learned to live with and don't rise to the level of being a strategic issue. We have ongoing problems running large jobs on their servers which affects us in particular because we need to publish records out to index in Solr for Blacklight. I'm certain that the circulation number you have for us is no longer correct as our print circulation continues to drop year over year. If you would let me know how you would like to measure circulation (particularly wrt to the ebooks that we're now circulating more than ever), I could put together a fresh statistic for the site. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

If it were up to me, the consortium would be seriously looking at Open Source ILS options. Our Alma contract is up in 2021 and we are looking a likely 3+1+1 contact option with a flexible for us escape clause if needed. There are some in the consortium pushing to give EBSCO's ILS a serious look as an option. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

The item count number includes journals, maps, CDs, DVDs, eBooks, print books, etc. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Like virtually all of our peers, we have suffered severe budget cuts this year that forced us to cancel serials and even contemplate pulling out of our commitments with database vendors, citing financial hardship. We opted for Ex Libris several years ago when we enjoyed a full systems budget and could find a way to pay for superior customer support and user experience. Ex Libris offers state of the art technology but personnel fluctuations prevented us from fully taking advantage of this and we are now running short handed. Given how disruptive it is to migrate to a new ILS, we are staying with our current system for the moment. However, we are monitoring the FOLIO project and would like to see it offer a successful, open source alternative to proprietary vendors dominating the systems marketplace. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The total of items in the library's collection 1.500.628 refers to items in the three institutions :[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are interested in and following the development of FOLIO, however, we do not have the technical expertise in the libraries to take on an open source product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Went live with ALMA/PrimoVE June 2020 (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We implemented Alma and Summon over Alma between Apr-Sep this year. We are still in the early post-implementation period with a steep learning curve and huge potential for improvement. I'm optimistic that our scores will improve next year when we have a better handle on things. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are not too happy with the company at the moment as they suddenly want to increase the annual fee by 40%, which we haven't budgeted for. At the new price we may not have chosen them back in 2019. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The company is moving the focus of the product from Library Services Platform to HE Services Platform. Will it remain as good as it is now in supporting the special requirements of Libraries? (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We would not consider implementing an open source ILS because we don't have enough IT staff to manage that. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

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

- We would investigate as many options as possible, including Ex Libris and open source, when we next look at systems. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We only launched Alma in August of 2020, and did so while working remotely. So we haven't really fully experienced life in Alma yet because we're not operating under normal conditions (not currently buying print books, not really doing normal circulation, etc.) It definitely needs work in the realm of customization and configuration, but time will tell how well it's actually working for us once all of that is working. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Primo gets mixed reviews from our community that coincide with how mature a researcher someone is. Novices appreciate how easy Primo is to use and the quick access to electronic content. Mature scholars with much deeper experience of libraries tend to complain about results relevancy and other issues. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Sometimes the speed of support can be a little slow. We sometimes get the feeling that not all of ExLibris is on the same page. We sometimes get conflicting information. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

I rated our discovery service lower for faculty and graduate students only because they prefer using specific databases instead of discovery. Those users have not expressed dissatisfaction with the service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Ex Libris Alma/Primo has really helped during COVID narrowing down to online resources for students and faculty when we weren't circulating print resources. However, the Central Discovery Index for management online resources doesn't always work well, showing online links we don't have or there are duplicate portfoilios. I think the aggregation infrastructure isn't working as well as it should to meet the needs of the students and faculty. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are part of the [...] library consortium. They worked with all the libraries in choosing ALMA/Primo. I wish we had chosen one of the other vendors, as Alma has proven to be clunky and has problems integrating with interlibrary loan. It will likely be at least 10 years before we move to another vendor, unfortunately. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] are moving to an Alma/Primo consortial system in 2021. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

RE ILS: there is some lack of flexibility that changes how user management is no longer adaptable to needs of the Library. Clarification: We have not had our ILS system long enough to give a true reflection of our comments. It has only been 6 months as of December. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Consideration would be at the consortial level, and it's currently unknown whether an open source ILS would be given serious consideration (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

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

We couldn't implement an open source system as we lack internal library ITS support to manage such a system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We will definitely be considering open source ILS options as we move forward next year with a decision on whether we should move away from Alma. We are deliberately structuring our procurement process in order to make sure that open source solutions - whether hosted locally or with a third-party provider - can be fairly and completely evaluated. We will be looking at FOLIO and Evergreen for sure. Even though Evergreen is not strong in the academic market, there is already a robust deployment of Evergreen in Georgia through the public libraries' PINES service. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)

Ex Libris customer service response time is unacceptable slow. One staff member feels that Alma does not spend a lot of effort optimizing functionality between Summon and Alma to favor its original discovery product, Primo. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

ILS: Use of Alma has gotten better after the last year because WE have created workarounds. There is a great deal of mousing and clicking to perform a single task. It is built for large libraries (multi-building/university library) and is not a good fit for small and middle-sized libraries. While the software may do what we need to get done, there are often many more steps required to complete the task. Because Alma is designed to be flexible for different types of libraries and processes, there is no documentation for recommended workflows for any task. Confusing and inconsistent terminology in the documentation and the software itself. Open Source Considerations: We are not currently considering any ILS so we answered zero. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

The "Approximate number of items in the library's collection:" needs a definition. I included the number of unique titles to which the law library manages, including both print and electronic. (Library type: Law; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Sometimes Ex Libris customer service is amazing. They have some very knowledgeable staff. Sometimes the response time to open support tickets takes longer that I'd like. The staff are professional and courteous, but I get the impression they don't have enough support staff in some areas. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

ExLibris needs to further improve their customer service and issues handling. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] is a member of the [...] . Requirements for ILS and discovery reflect our consortial contexts. Similarly, we are actively engaged as a development partner in Ex Libris's Rapido project, again reflecting our interest in supporting consortial level resource sharing and discovery. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The ExLibris products and what they can do are an improvement over our previous system. However, there have been bumps along the way with integration/implementation, personnel, training, customer service, and unforseen costs. Adding to that, CV-19 campus closures that challenged the ability for staff and faculty to work with the products. Thankfully, the web-based/cloud-based platform of Alma/Primo has allowed for the improvement and expansion of resources and services which would not have been likely under our previous system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The configuration of our consortium of libraries is unique to all vendors and would require more product support than our system would prioritize or be able to adequately fund. We are very supportive of open initiatives but existing options are not compatible for our configuration at this point in time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] was the first federal library to implement Esploro. The Alma/PrimoVE/Esploro platform is FedRAMP approved. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our primary concern is the expense to maintain our current ILS, in relation to the product which is provided. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We did an RFP a year ago in anticipation of the end of our current contract with Ex Libris. Ex Libris responded to the RFP as did a few other vendors, Ex Libris reduced their price from what we had been paying them, so we stuck with them. EBSCO/FOLIO also responded and we were interested in going with an open source system but with our small IT staff didn't feel that we could be an "early adopter" of that product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Overall, we are not happy with Alma/Primo VE because we were forced to continue to upgrade in 2020 even though we were all working remotely. There was a reliance on using Ex Libris's documentation for help with training, but the Knowledge Base is AWFUL. You can search for the exact same phrase or words that Alma/Primo VE is giving you within their Knowledge Base and find nothing. You have to comb through documentation and hope you find what you need. We kept hearing 3 years for us to get Alma/Primo VE working like we want it to. We aren't at even 1 whole year yet. We hope that will be the case for us! (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

All ILS decisions are made by our consortium. They used VuFind in the past. Due to the complexity of our consortium it is unlikely that development funds would be available to customize an open source ILS to fit our needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

There is no appetite at senior level for open source solutions, but it is an area which I do keep an eye on as some of the bigger players get behind some solutions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

In relation to our impressions on the product support is that overall when issues come up we tend to rely on community support for quick response, clarifications and confirmation of issues than on vendor support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are satisfied with the Library management system and Discovery tool. We maintain good working relationships with the Vendor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We very recently migrated from Innovative's Millennium ILS to Ex Libris' Alma, and also from the Serials Solutions 360 and Ex Libris' Summon to Ex Libris' Primo. We are still in the midst of refining our implementation of Alma/Primo. It is very much a work in progress, hence the middling scores for our academic discovery service. We hope to improve our implementation over time. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

*In theory,* we would love to move to an open source system, and definitely lament the consolidation and lack of choice in the market. However, realistically, library staff feel we don't have the in-house expertise or time to properly implement and maintain an open source solution. Regarding Ex Libris/ProQuest Support for Alma and related products: we are most disappointed with this aspect of the company and product. Support Case answers are often unhelpful, or go to dreaded "Tier 2," never to be heard from again. As compared to the KnowledgeBase we had when we were Intota/Summon customers (before our Alma migration), the current KB/CDI is woefully incomplete and inaccurate, and their method of doing updates creates an unbelievable amount of work in Alma to maintain. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Ex Libris' Alma is incredibly complicated to learn how to manage. There is very little about it that is intuitive. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have been very satisfied with performance of the products and with the support so far (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are part of a consortium and participate in joint decision making for our ILS and Discovery interface. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

The index (central discovery index) changed this year, resulting in some inaccuracies and mismatches in records. This has slightly decreased satisfaction with the product, although as manual data cleanup proceeds we may experience the claimed benefits of this switch. The change was mandated by the company, and support for resolving issues created by the switch has been limited. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are finding that Alma, even with its collaborative Network Zone, is not quite cut out to manage consortial resources (both print and electronic, for acquisitions and inventory management, and more) in the way we would like it to. However, we believe that no product will be able to solve all of our issues--especially not an open source one, not unless and until we are ready to hire an entire department devoted to developing the product in-house. (And at a time when we are hemorrhaging staff in all areas but the libraries in particular, it is highly unlikely that we will ever be able to adopt an ILS/LSP that is FOSS.) (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are unlikely to consider Open Source products as we do not have the staff resource to invest in maintaining or developing one. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We had high hopes for Ex Libris when we migrated in 2016. However, the migration did not go as smoothly as we had envisioned. We really "didn't know what we didn't know." We felt that it was their responsibility to guide us through the migration and implementation. When we made the cutover, we realized that there were several major considerations that Ex Libris was not willing remedy once we went live with their system. We've lost all of our systems' librarians so navigating the changes from Classic Primo to Primo VE have been difficult. The support of the company is poor. We have to log issues into a portal and wait for responses that often go back and forth for months at a time without resolution. I have a support case from November 2020 that has never been responded to once. The burden is put on the customer to provide a tremendous amount of information from screenshots to testing information and everything in-between. This leads to the customer doing most of the trouble-shooting and testing. If there is a 3rd party involved, be prepared for a lot of back and forth finger pointing between vendors. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I don't think our institution is at all likely to move to an open source ILS at this time since we have only recently adopted Alma (Jan 2018). Some individuals on staff might be interested, but I think the overall impression is that an open source ILS requires more effort on the part of staff. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Regarding Ex Libris support, it is good when provided. However, I would say there are issues with timeliness of the support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Ex Libris develops the products quickly and with relative openness and responsiveness to customers' stated needs. We wish that they would test the new developments more thoroughly. With monthly updates we find that new features may only work partially and are therefore not usable initially. We spend a lot of time reporting these kinds of issues when they occur. In some cases we'd rather have fewer features tested completely so they would work when implemented. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Alma is so complex. Without a global network of other libraries sharing their experiences with the product, it would be impossible to master the product independently. Alma is missing an advanced system to manage requests of print & electronic. We still require an external system to manage requests, which include obtaining quotes that have layers e.g. volumne discounts, different modules, licence details etc each having multiple prices & combinations of resources. This includes the opportunity for recording decision making and priority list ranking and keeping these requests for years Getting support from Ex Libris for what seems like simple fixes or queries can be very inconsistent. We've had great support from Rialto as early adopters, but support for Alma through Salesforce is comparatively very poor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Thank you for your work on your yearly Library Technology Industry reports, extremely helpful. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)


Alto

top

there is a feeling that Capita is not developing the LMS at a pace that suits the customers (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Last time we investigated Open Source, we were surprised to discover that costs were higher than for commercial systems. It seems counterintuitive that there would be no cost saving. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)


Amicus

top

[...] (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)


Apollo

top

"Items in the library's collection" was interpreted as physical items. Total collection (physical and electronic) is 83, 044 as of the end of the fiscal year. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Clark and his team at Biblionix really stepped up to help us during the pandemic. When I asked for help turning off certain features while we were closed he did that. When we were ready to start curbside service and turn on the features his crew sent out a best practices sheet that reminded us of all the setting we could have potentially changed. We also worked with him to create self check-in and check-out stations, which are by the way, so easy to use our patrons love the new mode and we may never go back! Thank you Clark and Biblionix Support Crew for helping us through the pandemic of 2020! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are extremely pleased with the robust and intuitiveness of the Biblionix-Apollo System. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

After seven years, we are still very happy with Apollo and the service we receive from Biblionix (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our vendor Biblionix was quick to respond to the need to quarantine items. They provided an intuitive and easy to use solution. Our library is very happy that we went with Biblionix and Apollo. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Biblionix has some of the best customer service of any Library company I have worked with. They have re-written code and changed the ILS to meet our needs. With Covid19 they were proactive to change their ILS to accommodate the change in how libraries were delivering services. So happy with the company and their product. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are currently in the process of automating so not all of the questions could be answered. We are a small library manned by volunteers and have been closed since March. We began automating in September and, because of volunteer time we have not completed automating. We hope to be open in April. Thank you (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We've been very happy with Biblionix/Apollo. Makes a difference that they are a responsive small vendor. Service is scaled correctly for our size and needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Biblionix regularly responds to our customer service questions within an hour or two. Just yesterday there was a problem with the public-facing catalog and they had it fixed 56 minutes from the time stamp on my originating e-mail. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

So I've only been at the library a year. I've never had to contact customer services but I would do it directly. We don't use any print resources with this ILS. I don't know if we use electronic resources or not? I'm not sure I know enough about this to correctly fill out the survey. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Apollo by Biblionix really is a great ILS for small Publics. Open Source would be great if we weren't so pleased with what we have. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)


Athena

top

With a move to a new library space this past year, we are also now also actively pursuing migrating to a new ILS. We have looked at various options but OPALS appears to be ideal for meeting our needs. We are actively working with Bibliofiche in the conversion and plan to launch the new system in January 2021. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)


Atriuum

top

We are still very much in the process of integrating two libraries together. Inventory needs to be done and a few thousand books need cataloging. So the figure is a best guess. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I would have to know the advantages over what we currently have. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We don't use our circulation program to manage our e-books/e-audio-- that is done separately through the state consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] provides support for Evergreen; however, migration would be problematic. We have attached all patron records to the patron profile as media attachments in Atriuum. It would be difficult to manually download each file for retention. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We would consider Open Source only if the cost was not a factor. When we explored a new ILS, Open Source had to be eliminated from our choices due to the high cost. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Atriuum is easy to use. The ease of building reports and retrieving the data needed for circulation and state reports was a quick sale for us. If we don't see a report available for our needs, we can call customer support and they will have the tech department create what we need at no additional charge! I would recommend Atriuum for the reports options alone. However, the systems' other offerings are great too! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are very pleased with the support that Atriuum provides. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Books Systems has great customer service and is always open to working with our library on suggestions we may have to customize their system to fit our needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)


Biblio3000

top

This library does not belong to a library net, and has no money to invest on a new system, that's why we use a system developed in year 1992. The support we have is the collegue from this local administration's IT department, who keeps this system 'alive'. Many thanks for your work. Best regards from Spain. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)


Bibliovation

top

We moved to LibLime Biblovation last December. Despite some product functions that needed to be fixed and continue to be worked on, the migration went well. The product has been satisfying. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our first couple years with LibLime, subsequently PTFS, were a little bumpy but the last several years have going pretty smoothly as far as their responsiveness to our development needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)


BOOK-IT

top

Our library is integrated in [...] and they handle everything concerning the ILS including contact with the vendor and support issues. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)


Carl.X

top

Our non-Academic discovery layer, Aspen Discovery, is the best thing ever. High scores all around for the product and ByWater support. "How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources?" N/A: we keep online resources out of the ILS and in Discovery (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We just migrated to a new ILS in 2020 so there are some growing pains in the use of the ILS. We hope issues will be resolved and that staff will become more satisfied with the functionality of the ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

1. Our non-Academic discovery layer, Aspen Discovery, is the best thing ever. High scores all around for the product and ByWater support. 2. "How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources?" N/A: we keep online resources out of the ILS -- and *in* Discovery. Aspen Discovery allows for patron function integration with our OverDrive and Hoopla collections, as well as automated side-locading of MARC form online vendors that do not offer deeper function integrations. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)


Catalis, OpacMarc

top

Considering the size of my library, I am satisfied with the cataloging and circulation software, however I think it would be important to improve the search interface, so we have thought about using Vufind (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)


Concourse

top

too small to purchase new product. Not interested in more technology (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)


CyberTools for Libraries

top

I am a solo librarian, there is no way I could do an open-source ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)


DB/TextWorks

top

We are still very satisfied with the flexibility and functionality of the DBTextWorks backend. However a reported XSS vulnerability in the WebPublisher Pro component that Lucidea is not addressing is forcing a re-think. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)


Destiny

top

This is my first time to hear about NISO Open Discovery. Will you kindly give me more information on this product? (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I don't make the decisions. The district buys the software and we just use it, but I like Destiny. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I don’t really have the decision making ability for open source ils and wouldn’t even know where to start if I did. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We do not use any electronic resources in our ILS which is why I marked it a 5, but wish there were an N/A response to that question. I really like using Follett Destiny but wish my Tech Dept was up to snuff in helping me resolve issues but they are not. It's felt harder to get help in pandemic times from Follett. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

As the price increases with Follett Destiny, I am more interested in looking at alternatives. However, I have not found anything out there that would function the same while not taking up too much of my time. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our district makes decisions as to which ILS our library uses. Hopefully, this decision is made with input from the teacher librarians, but is mostly determined by the cost of the system. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Unfortunately i didn't understand most of the questions or language in this survey. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have no undergraduate students...need an N/A option. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Destiny is a very good product, but is expensive. In a typical year, we spend the same amount or more on our Destiny subscription than on new books. Customer service and tech support is excellent. Reports are very good, and the catalog and circulation functions work well. One confusing aspect is the hierarchy of permissions for library staff in Destiny. We are a very small library staff of 3 people. We do it all and often need multiple logins to do everything. It would be beneficial to have at least one "all powerful" login. I feel they often roll out new products at a very inconvenient time - in August when school is starting for us. We are hosted, so updates happen automatically. I have had an update occur over a weekend, and when I start my lessons Monday morning, the interface is different and my written instructions are no longer correct. :-( Sometimes Destiny has rolled out new products that still have too many flaws / bugs in my opinion. Their app isn't good, and their e-reader is very clunky, especially compared to the excellent of Overdrive's apps (Libby, Sora) and other products. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We used Evergreen, an open source ILS. It was terrible. I was so happy to switch to Follett. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Spellings need to be precise mostly, so a "did you mean...?" addition would be nice, especially in our middle school. The mobile app doesn't work, for patrons or librarians. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

I basically like the ease of using the system, I would, however like it to be more public library oriented as opposed to the school format. There are some features, like patron check-out history, that would be useful, and some reports that I am unable to generate as needed,. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

This library is a public library inside a school. The library system is more for school than public. Since we are public and are part of the [...] interloan program this system makes double of the work load because it will not work with the MelCat program. It's better if we were a selfish library and kept things to just this library. I can't get a simple report for state aid that should take less than five minutes. Instead I have to go into each material type pretend I'm going to delete the material to get the count for each material which takes way longer and I can accidently delete all the material in that type. Crazy!! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

The support staff was amazing to work with and all issues were resolved quickly. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] has been a long-time early adopter and found that Follett responds quickly to proposed changes and upgrades. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)


DIGIBIB

top

La causa de la migración se debe a problemas burocráticos relacionados con la aplicación de la Ley de contratos española. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)


EOS.Web

top

In the coming year we are migrating to a new ILS and standing up a discovery tool. A complete re-work of how our users access informtion (Library type: Corporate; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)

Making the transition from physical to electronic media is inhibited by lack of interest at higher echelons in our organization. Until that changes, we are unable to determine if our present ILS will adequately support electronic media. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)


Evergreen

top

We already have an open source ILS. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)


Evergreen -- Emerald Data Networks

top

[..] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)


Evergreen -- Equinox Software

top

We already use an open-source ILS (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Any of the Evergreen ILS' shortcomings that I bore in mind are far more likely due to how our consortium has it configured, and not necessarily due to any shortcomings of Evergreen itself. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Have worked in both Koha and Evergreen environments; Koha is a superior product, in my opinion. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Already use an open source ILS (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We're using Koha. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

On the open source question, we implemented an open source ILS at the start of 2020 as part of joining a consortium. It has made a huge differences in effectively dealing with the challenges that the pandemic presented. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Evergreen ILS is a great step up from our previous system. When we need help, we can contact our vendor. Given that it is open-source, though, we are able to look through the code and find answers, solutions, and problems on our own much of the time. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

I have noticed that this software does not sort scanned items in a way that makes sense, like in direct order in which the items were scanned. From what I can tell it will arbitrarily appears on the list in no particular order. This makes it difficult to go back and find, as an example, listed scanned barcodes. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The support staff at Equinox has given us excellent service when we encountered issues with Evergreen. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Evergreen is an open source product which has enabled us to be very involved with the direction of features. Having Equinox as a support company allows us the benefit of paid support from subject matter experts when things get too difficult to handle in house or when we just require more people power to work out an issue. Our lead In-house Evergreen subject matter expert has contributed significant changes back to the project that many other libraries are now using. It has been an ideal relationship for us in a lot of ways. There are still challenges while using an open source ILS but I wouldn't say they are worse challenges than commercial ILS's. The difference with open source is, we have the power to do something about it rather than wait for the company to invest in our concerns or wishes. We usually run the latest stable version updated once or twice a year. We do this for two reasons. We receive feedback for development of the ILS from our staff to bring back to Evergreen project. We also have a local consortium that we are not participant in but also run Evergreen. The consortium runs a version or two behind us and we meet with them to give them a roadmap of what expectations or issues can be set with their next update. Libraries, helping libraries. This relationship with the consortium has opened up new opportunities as we have meetings with our neighbors on a regular basis now. Evergreen is the reason but many library issues are spoken about during those meetings and recommendations from personal experiences with vendors, services, etc. It has been a real win-win-win. It's worth noting that when I speak to librarians or data entry people about our ILS I get the same reaction. Once they understand how it handles data, it's a good product albeit confusing at times, but getting their head around it initially felt challenging they said. This didn't seem like unexpected feedback while changing to another ILS system. Hope that helps, have a great day. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We already are an open-source ILS. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)


Evergreen -- Independent

top

The Evergreen community is excellent and very supportive, with a twice-yearly release cycle that makes it easy to anticipate and prepare for changes. They are suffering from technical deficit in the form of a UI reliance on both the obsolete Dojo JavaScript framework and the soon to be end-of-life AngularJS framework. It requires a lot of effort to build new features and keep existing features up to date with current technology standards. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We already use an open source ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Did not fill out Academic Discovery service section since we are a public library system (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our current ILS is open source so that's why a 10 was chosen. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are using the Evergreen open source ILS and are very satisfied with it. Much of our satisfaction with the system owes to the excellent management of our product by our automation consortium, the North of Boston Library Exchange (NOBLE) and the various other networks and consortia with whom they work cooperatively on enhancements and improvements. Not having to rely on a vendor's mostly one-size-fits-all is a tremendous advantage the open source model has over the vendor model. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We had an outside analysis done of all of the ILSes on the market and found that Evergreen was still the only really feasible ILS for a consortium of our size and complexity. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

I marked as [...] , Inc., our consortium, as "vendor" as they host Evergreen as our ILS. Perhaps you mean Evergreen as the vendor? (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: State; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Evergreen Indiana is an open-source ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)


Evergreen -- MOBIUS

top

In November 2020, [...] switched from the Polaris ILS to join the [...] consortium using the open source Evergreen ILS managed by Mobius. While Polaris is a superior ILS that served us very well, the decision was made to join the NC Cardinal consortium for resource sharing and cost savings. With just two months of Evergreen use under our belt, our staff are still trying to adjust to the differences and capabilities between Polaris and Evergreen. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)


Evolve

top

Evolve has no "extras" such as book covers, list making, suspension of holds, etc. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

Evolve has been a great vendor to work with. They have worked closely with us over the last year and made the transistion from the ILS to their ILS very easy. I appreciate the quick response time with questions about the system. They have also custumized the ILS to our individual library's needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)


FOLIO -- ByWater Solutions

top

We have already moved to open source ILS. We can influence change within the product. We can talk directly with developers and product owners. The financial benefit is significant. Open source has its challenges - some times development takes longer than expected or what we would like. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)


FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services

top

Given the overall state of the FOLIO project, our migration and implementation of the system has gone about as well as can be expected. We're excited for the planned releases coming in the first half of 2021 and to have more (larger) academic libraries in production alongside us. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

FOLIO is a very new LSP and are therefore still lacking some important functionality and has areas in need for improvement, thus it is hard to rate using the scale provided. Since FOLIO is rapidly developing, bug are of course found. Nevertheless, it generally works well for print circulation and especially for ERM. There are some performance issues but we have had no downtime since implementing more than a year ago. Bugs are addressed swiftly and with high engagement, both from EBSCO and from the FOLIO community. We have high expectations for future development. The main issue for us is the poor user experience for patron functionality in EDS, mostly due to the outdated EDS UI. We are looking forward to the new EDS UI in 2021 and think this will improve the overall happiness with the integration FOLIO-EDS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)


FOLIO -- Index Data

top

FOLIO has come a long way. Our library staff liked the well-designed interface. It's intuitive and easy to use. The transition from OLE to FOLIO is very smooth for us. There are many features that still need to be developed and we will have to deal with frequent releases and hot fixes, as well as workarounds in the next few years. But overall, it's exiting and well worth the effort. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)


Heritage Cirqa

top

Looking towards capturing more information created by the organisaton so looking at a knowledge management system (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 3)


Horizon

top

I've stated what systems we are using RIGHT NOW - but we are getting toward the end of our Alma implementation project and we will go live January 2021. Alma/Primo is due for Go Live Jan 2021 (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

While I admire the efforts of the folks developing FOLIO, time has shown over and over again that OS solutions are half-baked, and to get sufficient functionality and support you have to purchase a proprietary solution or hire a team of programmers to further develop the system for your internal needs. Small and medium-sized academic libraries don't have that luxury. *** Our library has been a SirsiDynix customer for decades, but they have almost completely failed the academic market. I've held out as long as I can waiting on them to provide a comparable solution to Alma or WMS, but I don't foresee staying with SD once my multi-year contract expires. Trying to write an overlay that would work with two incompatible systems was not the solution we needed. That being said, I still love the company, the employees, and the support they provide, which makes the decision to migrate all the more difficult. Unfortunately, I am also deeply tired of nursing along a nearly 30-year-old system (a problem which won't go away even if BLUEcloud does work someday), being charged an astonishing amount for each incrementally released new functionality component rather than having an all-in-one solution, and needing to manage multiple products from multiple vendors to get anything close to an adequate setup for a 21st-century academic library. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

It would be useful and interesting to include discovery services used by public libraries e.g. BiblioCommons in this survey for broader comparison and consideration. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Horizon generally does the things that it was designed to do quite well, but it is rather old and lacking in some important newer features. The lack of an API makes interoperability with some new services difficult. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

My library does not make the decisions regarding ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We haven't looked deeply into the ILS market since 2008, so we are in the beginning stages of doing that research in preparation for an RFP. We feel that SirsiDynix is letting their core products (Horizon in our case) lag while they keep adding new products for niche markets. It's also been so many years since they introduced BLUEcloud Central and the promise hasn't lived up to reality yet. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

I feel that ILS is doing a fine job. Headquarters usually finds answers to our questions. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

we are not that far along it is part of a 5 year plan (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are generally displeased with our ILS and feel that the discovery service was forced on us a year ago. Because the tech services manager also administers to these systems, little-to-no time is available to devote to these expensive content management tools. Because of the economic climate and the population loss in our publicly funded service area we are switching to the state's consortium upon completion of the current contract. We do feel that the money spent on our ILS and all accompanying facets of it are not money well spent because of gaps in staffing. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We have been very pleased with our ILS vendor, SirsiDynix. In the last year they introduced much needed security updates, along with new functionality, including merging duplicate borrower records and borrower passwords. Their support was exceptional in responding to the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, including providing consultation on re-configuring the ILS to respond to our members service changes, and general support articles about how to handle basic changes such as delaying hold notices, updating notice language, and modifying holds and circulation rules to accommodate new quarantine periods for returned items. Additionally, the customizability of Horizon allowed us to configure the ILS in manner that supported all our member's COVID policy changes without having to say that we couldn't do it because of limitations in the ILS. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Sales support is almost non existent since [...] left out jurisdiction. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] is in the RFP process for an ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

The SirsiDynix Horizon product needs to be tailored to the exact needs of the library rather than packaging modules together that may no longer be needed. For our FTE and small collection, the cost is becoming too great. That's why we are considering changing. The reason why I only gave a 2 to the question about electronic resources is because we don't include the marc records for most eResources in our "classic" catalog. Bibliographic control is too time-consuming. We encourage students to use the discovery service for everything except requests. As soon as there is a way to include requests in our discovery service, we will eliminate the OPAC entirely. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

User interface is somewhat dated. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I have been consistently impressed with the quality of customer support provided by SirsiDynix (Horizon). This was exemplified during COVID where we had to make numerous system modifications to accommodate closures and evolving services. Customer support was there to help with the ILS changes while also providing documentation and free training, and this help was invaluable. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The vendor offers products that would help meet our electronic resource needs. We cannot implement them at this time. While the system does not meet the needs of some very ambitious new programs, it has the ability to be customized and that work is underway. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Pretty much the same feedback as we've done for the last decade. Horizon is old but functional. It works. It doesn't look very pretty, and some components are absolutely horrible (itypes and changing budget dollars in ACQ - who designed it so the human has to pull out a calculator to get the correct numbers? It's a computer. As in compute!). Blue Cloud Cataloguing and Circ are still missing vital features we need (after about 8 years of SirsiDynix working on them!) so we haven't moved to those. We've looked at pretty much everything and no ILS/LSP looks significantly better to justify the huge time and effort for a migration. Horizon is like an old jalopy. It doesn't look good and doesn't move very fast and it's hard to find the right parts to fix it, but it still gets us to our destination. And hey, I retire in 15 years! Maybe by then SirsiDynix might have finished Blue Cloud! Or maybe not... (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are very happy with our current ILS. SirsiDynix consistently provides excellent customer service whenever we have needed support. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Current ILMS is suitable and has been maintained but have been advised as its now 18 years old that it is time to go to Market. Would be looking at a Cloud solution so we have less reliance on our ICT staff. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)


Insignia

top

We are happy that the vendor has been responsive to our functionality improvement requests, but there is always room for improvement. They have been working hard on increasing the number of technical support staff, but, there is a definite knowledge gap that as a customer of two years, we are not used to. We are happy that our ILS provider is working alongside us to implement mechanisms by which our customers will more readily be able to find Canadian content. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

This library was required by higher headquarters to migrate to a shared ILS, and the [...] chose Insignia. There are numerous issues with Insignia that leave it less than desirable product: 1) However, I do not believe that Insignia provides a real discovery layer or federated search since there is no metadata provided by Insignia. So far it can include title level information from EBSCO, but doesn't provide a robust federated search. It doesn't offer facets, or subject searching, or any ability to refine or limit. Insignia does not provide a federated search for other databases. Army University has linked up Military Periscope, Country Watch and ProQuest with an icon for logged in users to click on, then it will lead the user to the other databases. The user doesn't have the opportunity to use the one search box (search everything) feature on the AULS subscription databases for most of their subscriptions. Until Insignia works out their federated search capability, I would say they are not offering a real discovery layer. 2)The Collection Analysis offered is insufficient and doesn't appear to adequately address age of the collection. The collection analysis tool cannot reach back to a date prior to 1910. That means it is giving a wildly inaccurate date for the average age of the collection. There are over 13,000 items in the collection that are out of range of its analysis. It doesn't offer analysis by LC, just Dewey for this feature. 3)Its Digital module is not compatible with Dublin Core. 4) This Insignia ILS is probably sufficient for an elementary or high school, and I could see some public libraries embracing it for it's ease of use, but it isn't robust enough for an academic library or a government library of this size or with these various item types. 5)Insignia is very modular. The modules do not correlate or work well together. If is not user focused. For example, texts cataloged in the textbook module have to be searched in that module, they cannot be found in the regular catalog, That in and of itself defeats the idea of a "discovery layer." Insignia simply doesn't have it. Thank you (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)


Koha

top

Pleased with the vendor's ability to continue providing customer support despite the pandemic. ILS continues to improve and better meet our needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

At present the KOHA software fulfilling all requirement of our library (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Already into the Open source! If we will create a new solution, we will give an open acces licence. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Nuestra biblioteca no utiliza aún un SIGB, sino que trabajamos con bases de datos ISIS y programas desarrollados ad-hoc para el funcionamiento de cada servicio. Estamos en proceso de migración a Koha, pero mientras tanto implementamos Vufind con excelentes resultados durante 2020. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We have an open source ils and a support contract with a local company with expertise on Koha. 2020 was a very strange year. It is the first year with Koha but half of the year the library was closed to the public, the last two months almost closed (we deliver books at the entrance of the library). We haven't one year work, experience or problems. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We currently use two open source systems in our library. We use VuFind as OPAC and discovery interface and KOHA as open source ILS. We implemented and migrated them ourselves. We do not currently have support services for these systems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Wegen der Fragen zum Anbieter des IBS: Wir nutzen Koha direkt, ohne Anbieter dazwischen, deshalb konnte ich die Frage "Würde die Bibliothek wieder mit diesem Anbieter zusammenarbeiten, wenn sie zukünftig auf ein neues System migrieren würde?" nur mit 0 (= unwahrscheinlich) beantworten. Bei der Frage zur Zufriedenheit mit dem Kundenservice habe ich mich auf die allgemeine Mailingliste bezogen. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)


Koha -- ByWater Solutions

top

The customer service provide by ByWater is exceptional. If your ILS contract comes up for renewal, you absolutely should give them a call. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are already an open source library using open source platforms for ILS, library guides, digital archive, and institutional records repository. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

As no vendor is perfect, I would not consider ByWater Solutions to be completely flawless. However, they have been a magnificent partner in working with our consortium on a variety of needs that range from support to future developments. I would recommend their services to any type or size of library. They can deliver at a competitive price point and the more people that contribute to Koha, the better it gets for everyone. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Bywater has provided superb customer service and tech know-how to retrieve records lost due to a technical glitch during our shut-down and removal to remote location. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We've been using Koha, with support from ByWater Solutions, since 2016. We are very pleased with the functionality and customization of Koha. We had significant budgetary savings by going with an open source ILS. Support from ByWater and other Koha libraries is awesome. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are very pleased with Koha and the Aspen Discovery product (added this year). ByWater Solutions has been very easy to deal with and they are very responsive to our requests. Koha offers pretty basic support for electronic resources, but Aspen Discovery has provided us with a very easy to use and manage way to provide electronic resource access. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We already use two open source products: Koha and Libki. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

As with all growth issues, economic and technological, there are days that the sophisticated and complex capabilities of KOHA seem all too much for our small, high touch service model. That said, at least we are positioned for the next generation of users in our community and our human resources bridges any gaps that may occur when current seniors are introduced to our systems. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Bywater's customer service is stellar. The limits of the Koha ILS is where most of our problems occur. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We use Ebsco Discovery for 4th and 5th grade students in an elementary school. The interface works pretty well, and allows us to include all the links we need to other non-Ebsco sites as well on our landing page. We use it as a landing page for our one-on-one laptop program for these grades. While we are happy with Koha and very happy with Bywater, we still do not feel that Koha is as kid-friendly in its OPAC as we would want. There is a real need for kid-friendly OPAC interfaces: and some of it would be as simple as suppressing certain fields, and being able to highlight others by controlling the font size, etc. As a small stand-alone library, we don't have the funds to pay for or even contribute to the development of improvements in the interface. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

already open source (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Overall, customer service with Bywater is very good. It would be nice to see more digital resources implemented/integrated free of charge. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are happy with our ILS, Koha, and very happy with our vendor, ByWater Solutions. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We currently use Koha, which is an open source system. We are pleased with it as an integrated library system. We do not take advantage, however, of the opportunities for customization that open source offers, because we are a very small library. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We already have an open source ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)

We do not use the ILS for print or electronic management. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have been very favorably impressed with ByWater Solutions' expertise, knowledge, and willingness to work with us to achieve our goals. Particularly when we shut down unexpectedly in March 2020 for COVID19, it was heartening to know that ByWater already had systems and processes - and documentation! - in place for us to use. Serving our public during lockdown was only possible because of ByWater's foresight and support. Our previous ILS certainly could never have coped with this unforeseen situation. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Product works well for our library and system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The Open Source Considerations question was about considering implementing an open source. We have migrated to KOHA a year ago, so that's why I answered "likely", not that we would do it again. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Bywater Solutions has been an excellent vendor, with friendly and helpful support and training individuals. Overall, I am very satisfied with their service. One small weakness of theirs is speed in responding to some tickets. Some tickets take several weeks to receive a response, particularly in the "Systems" queue. I suspect their Systems team is often overwhelmed with work and running behind. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Koha has been good. Our concerns are when patrons pay a fine, Koha adds more money which results in a tremendous over-credit and you can't remove it. Also, items that are being checked out sometimes are indicated to be due back on the same day; specifically this happens a lot with board books. Also, sometimes when there is a hold on an item, when you go to confirm and print it out, it goes to an 'internal server error' and then you have to go back to do the process twice. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

ByWater has been an excellent source of support for over 3 years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] already uses an open source ILS, Koha. This is the response for the consortium. Individual member libraries will submit their own responses. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

One thing I would appreciate having back is the Browse key, it is just a personal preference as a cataloger, it is a key that is immensely helpful in making sure all titles, series, subscriptions are cataloged in the same consistent manner. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

ByWater's upgrade webinars and documentation are excellent and they were really wonderful in the chaos of this year. Looking back at the series of tickets I opened (beginning with "if we closed, how would this work?" and progressing through "this seems likely, so what if we..." ending with "Oh no, this is happening now and I'm just going to turn off a bunch of things, I hope nothing breaks, thanks!") I'm amazed at how calm and helpful they were knowing they were getting that from all of their customers with varying levels of technical acumen and panic. If I were to change anything about Koha, it would be to add more robust features to the acquisitions module. Templates for creating orders and the ability to receive items in groups instead of one at a time would save us considerable time. I follow the acq SIG in the Koha community but haven't been able to participate as much as I would like. It's lovely to have that outlet and resource though - the joys of Open Source! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are very happy with Koha overall, but we have a few concerns/difficulties. We offer a monthly Fine Forgiveness Day, and the system does not forgive fines for Lost/Long Overdue items easily. It is also difficult to record when a patron pays for or replaces a lost item. The accounting tab and item records do not "communicate" with each other well. However, overall we are pleased with the system, and the only way we were able to automate 6 years ago was because Bywater Solutions offered a discounted price through our state library. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Koha is a robust library management system, but we do not currently use a discovery layer. Our online public access catalog searches take a noticeable amount of time (close to 5 seconds per search or screen) and feel slow. Patrons and staff would prefer a faster response and a better known title result display. Because most searches are keyword, the known title searches sometimes show the desired result several screens down the list. Also, our Overdrive ebooks are searched from the Overdrive site, but the results are not integrated with the list of print titles in the search results. This is supposed to be in development, but does not yet work. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I have always been very pleased with the support services provided by ByWater Solutions and our Koha partners. They respond quickly and are willing to work with other vendors from whom we have products. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

ByWater is quite responsive to our customer service tickets and emergency calls even on weekends. They have regularly helped me to create new statistical reports to find the odd data from time to time. Their regular improvements have improved functionality with the Aspen Discovery layer which has been amazing in aggregating records and formats to ease searching for patrons. The only complaint I have heard is about the functionality of the Libki print management which relies on Google. We have been hesitant to switch to it due to our neighboring libraries' concerns. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

ByWater is very attentative to our needs. They answer support requests quickly and are always open to our new ideas, and new coding challenges. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are considering Aspen for discovery, through Bywater (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] to implement an open source ILS. We would like to see a better system in terms of electronic resources. Koha is fine for print materials, although circulation would like to see better functionality in this area as well. Also, acquisitions needs to be bolstered in Koha. As a product, Koha would seem fine for smaller public libraries. With the amount of acquisitions and electronic resources we purchase, Koha leaves a lot to be desired. I should note this is separate from ByWater Solutions, Inc., which has excellent support and customer service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Technically KOHA (our ILS) is an open source ILS, we just have a vendor set it up and troubleshoot. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We do not share discovery systems or any other services, programs, or software except for the Koha ILS as serviced by ByWaterSolutions, Inc. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

See the note in the section pertaining to academic discovery. One area to consider asking about is if the Library uses an events management platform. Post pandemic for public libraries that is seemingly going to be a big area. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We use Koha (so already open source); the product is good, the customer service is excellent. There's things I wish they did/didn't do and some long-term bugs that need fixing, but I'm overall happy with the ILS and have no plans to change it. I'd recommend them if someone was asking. I have no clue how it works for e-resources because all of our e-resources have their own systems and we don't add e-records to Koha so I left that blank. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Bywater is always great to work with. They are responsive, friendly, and helpful every time I work with them. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

I do not feel I am qualified to answer any of these questions. My system library would be more qualified to answer. I did my best. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We currently use an open source ILS, so I probably answered incorrectly above. Just guessing! thanks! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We currently use an open-source ILS. We are not an academic institution and so have no data on the effectiveness of discovery services for students/instructors (Library type: Museum; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)


Koha -- Cineca

top

We are using Koha an open-source software and we are managing it through our [...] consortium with the help of a Koha specialist and the entire Koha community. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)


Koha -- Equinox Software

top

As a new, solo librarian to a very small institution I inherited both of these systems and haven't yet had the time to fully evaluate them, nor the budget to truly consider substantive changes. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Koha could use a better Reports section of their product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We migrated to Koha this past year and it has made a huge difference for our small non-profit community library. We love the possibilities for customization. Like all library systems, it's not perfect, but it works great for us and there's an open source community always working to improve and enhance features. It can do just about anything that proprietary library systems can do, if not more. We were awarded a grant through the Equinox Open Source Initiative for migration, and the migration team at Equinox was fantastic. They helped us set up the system just how we wanted it, with our specific checkout policies, custom member profile fields, SQL reports for patron and circulation data, and an OPAC that has our library branding. They also held virtual training sessions for our staff so that we were as prepared as can be when the "go live" date came. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Koha is our current and previous ILS. (Library type: Special; collection size: small)


Koha -- Independent

top

Almost all software we use is open source: Koha, DSpace, OJS, OCS, Drupal, simplesamlphp, etc. and we are promoting use of Open Source among Georgian libraries. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our Koha installation is self-supported, so in our case the "vendor" is the Koha community, koha-US in particular. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Due to institutional circumstances not related to COVID-19, our library is mostly inactive. We self-installed our open-source ILS and are not working with any support vendors. We are not using the ILS to manage electronic resources. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are currently running an open source ILS, Koha (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The question about the Academic Discovery Service ist strange. Its part of the open source solution (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

The Koha community is very active, with ongoing series of video tutorials, discussion lists, and an very accessible bugfix program. It's one of the best community-supported software systems I've seen, on any topic. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We currently have a library system, but with a tiny print collection, we might be looking at a situation where we do no have an ILS at all. We have a unique collection and the return on investment (ROI) is so low - even for an open access system. (Library type: Business; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

To clarify my response to Open source considerations. I have marked it as a 10 as I am completely happy with our current Open Source system, Koha. However, I am not interested in implementing any other open source ILS. I am a big supporter of Open Source and as Koha was developed here in the Horowhenua to meet our specific ILS needs before it went worldwide, we are not looking to change our system any time soon. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

we have been using the open source system koha for almost 10 years and we are extremely satisfied. Implementation and ongoing operation are without external service providers, but with great support from the Koha community We ar (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Currently we are working with Koha ILS, and we are interesting in using an open source Discovery, like Vufind. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

The only organization we used is the Koha community. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)


Koha -- Interleaf Technology

top

Not looking to make any changes currently but will always consider these as new products appear and current contracts end. Open source and cost-effectiveness are always primary considerations. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)


Koha -- Kobli

top

Usamos un sistema de código abierto: Koha-Kobli (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)


Koha -- LibLime

top

My main concern with the PTFS Liblime Koha implementation is that this version has diverted significantly from the common open source version. Sometimes this greatly affects compatibility and coding with connected products, but it also seems to remove this version from the world-wide contributions and developments of the regular open source product. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Overall the selection of a product boils down to finances. Adopting an open source ILS is always an option. However, even then hosting and accessing is at at cost. During these trying times, the desire is for more more access with less finances. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)


Koha -- Theke Solutions

top

La empresa que nos brinda el soporte es Theke Solutions y estamos conformes con ella. Estamos pensando migrar las publicaciones institucionales a un Repositorio abierto con DSpace. Nos gustaría tener una interfaz de descubrimiento que reúna la documentación de ambos sistemas + el acceso abierto tipo VuFind o FOLIO pero todo tiene un costo y en este momento no lo podemos solventar. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)


Koha -- Xercode

top

Ya estamos usando un SIGB de código abierto, Koha, y en caso de migrar (que actualmente no lo contemplamos) usar un software de código abierto sería una premisa fundamental. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)


Libero

top

We have hardly any staff looking after collections and the LMS, due to this we would not consider an open source ILS. Regarding the management of electronic resources, we gave a seven (7) as Libero is on the brink of rolling out Omnio. Omnio will manage online resources where there has been no API connection and easy management to date. Depending on that service we might rate it higher soon. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Libero is excellent. No plans to change (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)


Liberty

top

We just migrated to Liberty in October 2020 and we are very pleased with the functionality (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I like Liberty because are very flexible to customize I like Summon because are very useful in connecting the databases. I consider NISO to cut the Library cost. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)


Librarika

top

Librarika is so basic as to be nearly unusable. But it will at least create a CSV file that (hopefully) will be helpful in a future migration. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)


Library.Solution

top

I would have given TLC a higher score than 9 on service if that were possible. TLC senior staff are truly interested in the customer being a part of the development of the product, by asking for input and listening to customer opinion. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Each upgrade to the Library.Solution software breaks a function that had been working, resulting in staff frustration and delays in correcting the new problem. Customer service suffered during this pandemic with staff working from home and not communicating with each other. Communication with clients on tickets has still not improved. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

We only completed our migration to TLC LS2 in mid-January 2020 so we are not by any means looking at other ILS options right now. I have been keeping my eyes open on what is happening with the FOLIO project as it looks quite interesting. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are very satisfied with TLC and have no desire to move. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

The past 18 months or so we've realized that our TLC Library.Solutions software has not kept pace with other products, is inflexible in ways that have required substantial workarounds, and that their customer service has slipped. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Many of the issues we have with TLC are related to how our consortium was initially set up and is managed. We don't have as much control over what we can and can't do and TLC does not allow us to customize each library's experience as much as we would like. We have considered leaving our consortium as a result of the issues we have but for now have chosen to stay to help offset the cost to the smaller libraries in the system and because there are still a few advantages to being a part of the consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

All decisions about automation are made at the school district level. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 3)

We have had frustrating experiences with some of TLC's customer service representatives. We opted to upgrade to version 5 of Library.Solution because they presented it as having so many great features, and claimed that it would make cataloging easier, but we've found that is not the case at all. The new version has taken away some critical features, such as the ability to batch delete records. The most crucial part of our frustration is that we are no longer able to edit and manage our records effectively and efficiently, as they've eliminated our ability to edit the entire MARC record without jumping through hoops. We've found a number of features across different modules they've claimed to have simply don't work. We feel that in their quest to be ahead of the curve and usher libraries into the future they imagine, they've failed to listen to what public libraries actually need and want. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our library contains not only the materials for our constituency but also the diocesan archives, which are not available to the general public. A discovery service would not benefit us greatly, and the funding level will not bear one without applying for grants, which would need to be renewed yearly. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

OPEN is a four letter word when you are coming from Innovative or other professional systems. Although TLC works and has a good performance the lack of thought on meeting ADA and customer support is mediocre to poor. Many simple requests to TLC are met with unwillingness to even consider and responses can take weeks in many instances. Arranging to complete TLC updates has taken over six months and still waiting. Not maintaining the TLC to operate on more current versions of Microsoft Server is frustrating as well. Our entire County migrated to MS Server 2019 in 2019, but we are still left behind on the 2016 version (as of 1/21/21). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)


LibraryWorld

top

We do not offer electronic resources. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Library World does what it needs to do, although it is lacking in some areas (especially reports.) In some cases, we can get totals, but not the details behind them, and vice-versa. I'm never sure if this is a program deficiency or a user-based deficiency, and LW's "help" sections are vague, at best. With a very small library staff, no one has extra time, which makes researching the how-to's a project instead of a procedure. I had to download something from another state's library system in order to get the details that should have been available to me immediately. My staff has to look at the screen every time a book is checked out, because LW makes the same sound for a successful checkout as it does for problems with the checkout. It is more time-consuming than an automation program should be. LW is not intuitive, but it is inexpensive, and our budget limits our choices. Our state library has been suggesting (for years) that there may come a time when we all use the same ILS. I'm interested in open source software, but have not had the opportunity to research and poll other libraries to make a choice. The best I can say about LW is that it works pretty well for the money. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are a very small special library and do not have the equipment or staff to consider moving to an open source system. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)


Millennium

top

We will be one of the first special collections libraries to move to FOLIO and Blacklight in summer 2021 in partnership with EBSCO. Also, possibly the first in the UK. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

[...] will be moving to Polaris next year. [...] (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are currently migrating to Ex Libris Alma; go live is in July 2021 (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We found Folio very exciting but it was just not ready for a consortium migration. Maybe in a few years it will be. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

En septiembre de 2020 comenzó el proceso de migración al nuevo sistema FOLIO, y se espera que esté implantado en abril de 2021. Hasta ese momento se sigue utilizando Millennium (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We would move to a newer ILS product immediately if the money was available. Right now though a new ILS is on the long-term wish list. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)


None

top

Library non-operational at present, and likely to stay that way for some time. Attempted to update web address in library details, but could not do it after log in. Not easy to use the amendment (Library type: Other; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)


OPALS

top

MediaFlex and their OPALS program are a total gift. We are soooo very grateful for their excellence and follow-through! (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

This is our first year using OPALS. We worried about data migration and learning a new system. The data was transferred less than two hours after we sent it, We were trained by Webex and operating the system in two days. So far, the system works very well and is a great improvement over the one that had served us in the past. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We continue to be very pleased with OPALS product and service, particularly their responsiveness to change requests,. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I LOVE Opals! It provides the tools I need to manage my library and resources. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

OPALS continues to be a very useable, cost-effective, and responsive ILS with excellent customer service. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our regional library system and OPALS folks partner to provide timely support and instruction. OPALS programs were updated several times again this year. These updates helped us provide curbside and delivery services and to log and track returned items quarantine periods. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Would always recommend OPALS/Media Flex to a library looking for superior customer support, ease-of-use and design, and pricing. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The system enables us to offer safe, self service options to our lower / middle / high school students. Digital database, single sign on, discovery searching is being used more than ever this school year, although print is still popular. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

OPALS is a system that is user friendly for administration, faculty, students and library staff. It continues to provide extraordinary and prompt support for any questions or requests that we have throughout the school year. Annually, they have been helpful during the rush of "back to school" when new patrons are imported. We are very pleased with OPALS. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Excellent support and updates addressing 2020 pandemic library service challenges. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

OPALS continues to be an amazing product for our high school library's needs. The response time from OPALS is fantastic and always right on the money. Any updates that they add to the system are integrated seamlessly with only the enhancements being noticed and not any delays. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Prompt support and cooperation. Excellent hosting service although we are 11,000 km from them ! (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

This program provides all the functions our college students need. Their librarian and technical support staff set up the system, transferred our data and trained us. Our administrators are pleased with our decision, services to faculty, and the cost. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Program options helped us adapt to the "new normal." This included management of 1:1 Chromebooks and digital resources (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our school library has used this system for 11 years. Regular updates manage our increasingly diverse resource formats well and students' changing expectations. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Customer Service is absolutely outstanding! Every time I have an issue or suggestion, there is such a quick response. I can't thank you all enough. Love OPALS! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The system and support are outstanding. Professional librarian consulting and video tutorials help us respond to faculty and students research. We also use the system's virtual portal utilities to provide reference services and to feature topical resources. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

They are the best!! (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We now manage three libraries using OPALS. We also started using the integrated equipment and textbook programs to keep track of our school's expanded mobile device resources and hybrid teaching model this school year. The program has adapts well our changing environment and service is excellent. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I have been so happy with OPALS and the program's support team! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

OPALS is an amazing service. I am so happy with the product and it allows me to build and expand to meet the needs of the build. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

OPALS has been a great library library system for our whole district. They always listen to any suggestions that we have to make things better and easier for the librarian and the students. During this past school year, in the pandemic, they have gone above and beyond with implementing a quarantine mode for check-in/check-out that has made out lives much easier. Their customer service is the best I have ever worked with. I would recommend them to anyone. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The support group provided timely updates.These improvements enabled us to provide services safely to our community this year. Students and teachers are using the discovery / single sign-on application more than ever. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our library system now includes mainly Arabic and English language, catalogued, eBooks, PDF documents and STEM kits. This system has enabled us to manage these additions well. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

OPALS is an open-source ILS and we are very, very happy with it! The interface is child-friendly, especially the search screen, it's easy to use and clean. We are especially happy with the customer service Media Flex provides. All of the people who work there from the top down are readily available and happy to help with any questions or issues. We rarely have any tech issues! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have used OPALS since 2008. The program is updated every year in response to our requests. This year, some of the updates made it possible for me to launch "Request a Book/Curbside Pick Up at the Library Entrance." (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Media Flex is an outstanding company. They are always willing to listen to our needs and make adjustments that not only assist our schools but they use these enhancements to help others as well. I am not sure you can find a better Library Automation Service anywhere. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Still very pleased with our choice of system after using it for more than a decade. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our school district acquired and needed to manage a large number of hot spots and Chromebooks this school year. Our OPALS equipment management program was able to come to their rescue. Our library system also manages services to remote students serviced by our library bus. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our "STEM" academy library manages science kits, robotics and other non-print resources. Our system manages these resources as well as single signon to our information databases. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are especially pleased with this year's updates. The changes helped us coped with our irregular pandemic schedules and policies. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Just in time updates and outstanding support. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have used OPALS since 2008. With one to one computing, their Google extension inserts library resources in every Google search. Their Google single sign on, enables even elementary school students to make self service reserve requests and access other library services and resources using the same credentials as they use for Google Classroom. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our regional library system supports our system quite well. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have successfully integrated access and single sign-on authentication to print and digital information databases just in time for the current learning situation. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

The data migration to this system was easy. The remote instruction was given by a staff librarian and technical support is excellent. (Library type: Theology; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our students love the kid friendly OPAC. They also made it easy for our elementary students to place self service reserves for classroom and curbside delivery. Single sign on, discovery database browsers enable us to create listings for beginners, intermediate, teachers and parents that are especially useful at this time. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

OPALS manages our print and digital resources very well. This year we were tasked with managing calculators and 1000+ Chromebooks. Their equipment and asset management program was so easy to implement and integrates with our library system. Our teachers, administrators and we are impressed. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We migrated to OPALS in 2008. What we manage, who we work with, where and how we work has changed since then. We are so relieved that our system has kept up with all these changes. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Amazing technical support. Steady stream of updates. Adopted their IT/Asset management application to manage our district's laptops and tablets. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

OPALS continues to be responsive to the cultural and linguistic facets of our community. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

I have been very happy with MediaFlex's quick and useful development/implementation of software "tweaks" to address circulation problems related to the pandemic, especially regarding quarantining returned items and having this status appear on the public catalog. Also, they were helpful in answering my questions regarding using this new feature.I also appreciate the online tutorials the company provides. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We renovated our library facilities and doubled the digital resources for our students and faculty. The ILS easily accommodated the media, facilities and capacity changes, in addition to meeting the demand for remote learning. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Excellent system and service. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our system data migration to OPALS was easy. The company's Webinar training was professional and our first year using the system, was remarkably smooth, despite the pandemic. (Library type: Synagogue; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our region has used OPALS to share library resources since 2005. The developers implement our requests for new features. This year we adopted their advance booking system enabling librarians and teachers in our region to book multiple copy print, STEM kits and artifacts and synchronize deliveries with the van schedule for each location. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

OPALS has been very responsive to our library needs. The support staff is readily available, and since it is open source, it is affordable and dynamic. Changes to the software reflect our needs. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We only use OPALS for maintaining the online catalog, including acquisitions, cataloging, and deaccessioning. We are a retirement community and rely on the volunteer services of former librarians. (Library type: Other; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

This system has made it possible for us to pivot our services for students alternating between remote and on-site learning. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We migrated to OPALS in 2018 and are happy to have done so! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are new to OPALS and so far we are impressed. Data transfer, training and support has been outstanding. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We needed to quarantine returned books this year. Our system actually manages that for us! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

A wonderful company with great customer service! (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)


PMB

top

PMB is open source software (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)


Polaris

top

We continue to look/wait for an ILS with integrated patron engagement and customer relationship management functionality. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Although this library would prefer an Open Source managerial program, the current ILS and it consortium, is financially tied to the current program it uses. A complete overhaul would not be financially possible at this time and it does not seem to favor an Open Source program. (Library type: Other; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We migrated from Millennium to Polaris starting in Sept 2019. The data migration went very well. Polaris was responsive, making sure our data transferred the way we wanted it to. We went live with Circulation in March 2020, 5 days before we shut down for COVID-19. Polaris was generous in giving us time to learn and use the system before we were transferred to general support. I was hoping general support would be better with Polaris as compared to Millennium, since with Polaris we are assigned a specific site manager to handle out tickets. I was disappointed to learn that Polaris support isn't any more responsive than Millennium was. But we love the features in Polaris so we are not disappointed that we migrated. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Overall we are very happy with Polaris. As with any system there are minor UX issues that can be really annoying. Many could be easily rectified but they require a long process involving proposing it to the users group, voting on it, ranking the ideas and only implementing it after going through all this. How hard can it be to correct something that I can do with one click? To go through this whole process to, for instance, place the cursor back in a search box after a no-match is ridiculous. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our ILS is hosted by the vendor, and learned this year that their definition of 'uptime' is quite different from ours. They basically think that all they can be held accountable for is having their vm's running. If their API isn't functioning, that's not 'down-time'. Hopefully being bought by a larger company will help them have more realistic expectations for running a hosting service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are CURRENTLY migrating to SirsiDynix Symphony but have NOT switched over yet. We had attempted to use EBSCO Discovery Service as a tool to provide federated searching with Polaris and our e-resources but that was a failed project. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are nearing the end of our contract and are doing our due diligence in looking at other options which might be more cost-effective and perhaps offer some features/capabilities we do not currently have. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Polaris Library System has been a behemoth since day 1. It is much too complex to be efficient in the everyday uses of a public library. It is overly complex, the reports access requires input and reports about reports created by Illinois Heartland Library System, which is inefficient and out of the librarian's control. It was never the right product for this library system, either on the public service side or the governmental reports side. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our annual report has not been compiled for this fiscal year yet. The physical items in our building are listed as 143,395 but we have access to many thousands of digital/streaming items through Kanopy and other vendors. We used to load Hoopla and RBDigital records into the catalog but now only include 58,200 integrated OverDrive titles. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have just been frustrated with the lack of response with Polaris especially after the merger with III. We were looking at OCLCWise but they are so expensive and unless you are a huge system, it is not affordable. We were also looking at Koha through Bywater and keeping an eye on Folio even though they are geared more for academic libraries and not public. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We do not and have not had any requests from any patrons for any outside resources. Most people Google things and only ask for navigating the web if necessary. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

ILS companies get a bad rap, but we make their lives hell with our nitpicking and indecisiveness. I've been on both sides of the table, and I know that most companies are trying their hardest to deliver good value for money. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are a library system located in Georgia, one of the few systems not a part of the PINES state library consortium (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

This las time this survey was filled, it was not done by any current employees here now. We have noted the number of our physical collections, the larger number that was previously reported perhaps included electronic items. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Granted Polaris has new owners, but there are times where we ask something and get “I don’t know why it’s doing that" or “unable to determine” as the response. We eliminate e-content from reports because the ILS cannot track usage accurately. "Integrated" e-content in the ILS would be great. Fortunately, we're able to get some e-content into the catalog, but still have to rely on the various vendors for usage data. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Polaris customer support is amazing. Of all of the many vendors we work with, they are the most responsive and reliable, also we are able to build relationships with them instead of not knowing who we might get on the phone when we call with an emergency or question. Also they were very proactive about creating free resources to help libraries during the craziness of the pandemic shut down and immediately started working on ways to improve the ILS for future similar situations. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

All libraries share the centrally managed hosted ILS. The Collection Count includes all the holdings of the Library System, both physical and online. It does not include statewide databases and collections we also access. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

This library is a branch of the [...] . All libraries share the centrally managed hosted ILS. This library was damaged by hurricanes and is closed except for temporary express library building providing limited services. The Collection Count includes all the holdings of the Library System we pay for, both physical and online. It does not include statewide databases and collections we also access. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

LEAP is great in many ways, but it doesn't have all the functionalities of the Polaris client and running very specialized searches isn't as convenient. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

All of my assistance comes from [...] headquarters and they determine the products and support companies. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] manages the ILS and we have no contact with Innovative or Polaris. Some issues we have might be due to preferences of the [...] and not the product itself. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

We are a school library that has to use the public library ILS since we are part of their consortium. Polaris is not made with school libraries in mind, and many of the things that I know Follett Destiny users can do (which seems to be the most popular ILS in school libraries), Polaris just doesn't have the capability. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] is a member of the [...] Consortium, comprised of 16 of the 20 public libraries in [...] . The consortium voted at their December 2020 meeting to contract with Polaris as follows: to authorize [..] to enter into a 3-year contract with iii for a 4-piece package, comprising SkyRiver, Inventory Manager, API, and the Rejuvenation Project. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have a great system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Polaris enhancement requests rarely get implemented. Requests seem to enter a black hole once submitted. We are not given an opportunity to provide input/priorities re: future upgrades. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We represent our data for the system so each of our branch answers will the same. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

While we are not currently considering migrating to a new automation system, we will be exploring the question if we should. While not mentioned above for open source ILS options, I will be monitoring the progress with Folio and I just recently heard of Tind, which on initial glance appears intriguing. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

2020 was rough for many people and companies, however, since the acquisition of Innovative Interfaced by ProQuest, I have seen movement toward improvements but not big improvements. Hoping to see more in 2021. Polaris has been a very good resource, but it could be enhanced to be able to use it with tablets and work as a web site. Polaris client is functional for acquisition, cataloging, serials, and database maintenance. I wish we can improve public online catalog searching and search results. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Polaris is the only vendor that does ASN receiving, which is a huge plus for us. We'd like an ILS that incorporates more of the modern library needs, such as electronic resource management and book club kits. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)


Sierra

top

we really need a product that we can manage and that provides a price range for small/medium public libraries such as ours. I really don't want to migrate but we are being priced out of Sierra (hosted service costs, upgrading to the new product, etc). We would prefer to share the costs and management with a larger system with staff dedicated to technology and the ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Potentially, having III and the former Serials Solutions under the same ownership is a dream come true. We would expect full integration between the two suites of products. If this does not happen, then there is no point in not migrating over to Alma. Although Sierra is better for print materials, we are moving fast to a mostly digital library so Sierra's advantage is becoming irrelevant. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We will be migrating to FOLIO in June 2021. FOLIO will be hosted by EBSCO. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Overall we are very happy with our current vendors. As to open source solutions, my impression is money saved on product is spent on hours supporting it. That is from reading the literature and speaking with people. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We were very happy with our previous Koha ILS and the service we received from ByWater Solutions. For our purposes, Koha was far more intuitive and efficient for staff to use, and we had greater control over its administration. Our move to Sierra was prompted entirely by an institution-wide effort to align services between the medical campus and the main campus. Their collection is far larger and for that reason among others, we had to migrate to theirs instead of them changing to ours. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Also we are now talking with other [...] libraries to form an expanded consortium and migrate to a shared ILS and / or Discovery platform. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

Sierra has been a great system to work with and provides basic tasks we need to run our system. Sierra is however limiting by the consistent issues we face with the product. Troubles in public catalog speeds and option availability are actually better problems than last year of constantly dropping all connections every now and again. The community is wonderful, but very hard to keep connected with. You must join a paid membership group in an age where Slack and Discord exist, which freely connect communities to talk about other Sierra based libraries, troubleshoot issues, offer advice, feedback, and talk about ideas of how libraries are using Sierra. Though many of these communications are dealt with in different "modules" of innovative such as: CS Direct, or idea lab. The actual communication between customers and the transparency of how Sierra is working for other libraries leaves our library in the dark. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We share our catalog with the main university and our other law school. All ILS and Discovery decisions are made at the university. The [...] did implement its own discovery service with EBSCO in an effort to provide more targeted results for law materials. It is not quite as successful as we were hoping. Sierra upgrades/updates are usually problematic for our library location. Thankfully support from Innovative has been top notch in providing solutions when our IT department cannot. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The rating for going with this vendor again is based solely on the fact that the other public library product they have, Polaris, would likely meet the needs of our library. It is not a reflection on their effectiveness as a vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

When we told Sierra we were leaving, they may no attempt to lower the price to try to keep us. They also had a very expensive package for them to migrate our records. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

If we remain with Sierra I will be urging that we implement Summon as our Discovery. Most of our decision revolves around cost considerations. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We just switched from Encore to EDS native this year so that we could have more control. We are MUCH happier with EDS native. Still tweaking things. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are an early adopter of III's Vega, their new discovery interface. We are testing with staff, hope to roll that out to library patrons sometime in the first half of next year (2021). BiblioCommons would probably be the ideal discovery layer, but we cannot afford that. We are happy with III's service and really don't have a desire to change platforms. My only real complaint is that we purchase products (Encore, MyLibrary app, etc.) and then III doesn't improve much, develops a new product (Vega, some new mobile app that hasn't been clarified) which they then charge you for (again). That is frustrating. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We love our Pika layer, but I skipped that section because we're a public library. The number of items in our collection jumped considerably this year because last year I forgot to include digital materials. This year, I remembered. :) (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Innovative is still working out its relationship with ProQuest but its pricing continues to be terrible. We cannot move forward in technology/services because every change from Innovative costs money. I am wondering if Sierra ILS will be around much longer as Alma is the predominant ILS for higher education. Why support two systems if there is a clear favorite? (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

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

Not sure why the discovery questions are geared toward academics as discovery services are important to public libraries too. We use Encore and it is offered to both public and academic libraries and isn't ideal for either. We will be moving to Vega, also by Innovative, but it has been developed specifically for public libraries, although I feel that is an oversight as well. Good discovery systems for multi-type consortia are very much needed and there doesn't seem to be much concern for that in the marketplace. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I was slightly confused by the question, "How do you rate the service's objectivity relative to coverage of resources across publishers? (Is there any bias shown for any publisher or aggregator?" I rated this highly because we do believe EDS is bias towards EBSCO resources in its search and display behavior. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)

After Innovative Interfaces Inc (III) acquired by Exlibris or ProQuest Group, there are some initiatives III were doing in building a NextGen ILS has stopped and somehow left many academic libraries to start looking for NextGen ILS elsewhere. That leaves many libraries to look beyond ALMA provided by ProQuest Group. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

We've been shopping for a new ILS for a long time; Sierra largely does what we need but we would hope for something better by now. Alma was cost prohibitive the first time we looked at it (and not different enough from Sierra to warrant switching), and we have high hopes for FOLIO, particularly the customizable aspects of it (although perhaps we'd need dedicated personnel for some of this work). We feel constrained and not very satisfied with the current ILS offerings out there, and the field of options - and vendors - only appears to be shrinking. We're dispirited and basically just maintaining the status quo rather than doing anything innovative (pun not intended!) with our system. We also wonder whether our Summon instance could be improved with a different underlying ILS that we could better connect to our holdings. Additionally, we would like that Summon too could be more customizable/adaptable to our specific needs. Essentially, we're feeling like there isn't much out there so we're just treading water. Making the best of what we have. Is that where libraries are stuck these days? (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

While Innovative has been a great partner to work with over the years we find a better match for academic library needs in the Alma LSP. Since the acquisition of Polaris, Innovative has tilted towards the public library market and specialized modules needed by academic libraries, such as course reserves. authentication, electronic resource management and KB, and link resolver have not received much development attention. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Going to be a challenging year on the ILS front. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The lack of staff precludes major changes in our ILS at the moment. It is all we can do to get it into the cloud at the moment. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Not totally confident that open source is ready for prime time for a large system like ours. Not sure that they have the resources needed to train staff and perform a seamless transition (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

[...] does not have a Discovery tool. It is very unlikely an open source product would be considered, although there are advantages, due to lean staffing levels it would be close to impossible.to create/maintain. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

When you ask "Approximate number of items in the library's collection" do you mean physical items or physical + digital items? (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Folio not mature enough to seriously consider. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

The buyout of Innovative by ProQuest further consolidates the market providing even less options for libraries. These private equity buyouts continue to hinder already anemic product development. (We have already signed a contract for OCLC Wise.) (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

Having just migrated, we wouldn't consider any switch for some time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

we are part of a statewide consortium and are a very small library, so we use what is needed in order to remain a member of the consortium (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our system is very dated. We'd like to see more more modern look and functionality. It is feature rich, but sometimes those features don't work as well as we'd like. (Library type: State; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Most of the premium ILS is good but too expensive especially for a special/corporate library in which library service is not the main business in the organization. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are not happy with library discovery products. They are difficult to use and cost way too much for what they do. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Very difficult to make a large U.S. based company to make changes to their product to provide a better service to Irish customers (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our consortium office is terrific at resolving our issues. I have not had much experience reaching out directly to III (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are overall generally satisfied with Innovative Interfaces although there are features that we have yet to be implemented and tested at this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Thank you to Marshall Breeding for librarytechnology.org and all his great contributions!!! (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We belong to the [...] and members of [...] are involved with the public library and academic working groups of Folio. The intent is to help Folio develop in a way that supports a multi type library consortium (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are happy with our ILS in general, but the cost is getting more difficult every contract renewal. In addition, the system has grown and developed far beyond and in areas that don't really apply to us, so it's like we're driving a fully loaded Lexus or other high-end vehicle when we really just need a dependable Chevy, Buick, etc. We still need a certain robustness in basic functionality, including some key customizations of content, but most of the less-expensive systems either aren't sophisticated enough, or, in the case of OCLC's WMS, has a master-record structure that would possibly eliminate those key customizations. (Library type: Law; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

As a relatively small academic library we are interested in open source solutions but would need to feel confident that we had the internal and community support required to successfully implement FOLIO with Blacklight front end before we could commit. Additionally, because we have a shared catalog with two other academics, we would need to migrate in concert with one another. So, while we are deeply interested in FOLIO, we are not close to being able to commit at this point. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

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

We've already signed a contract for FOLIO. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

If our institution decided to go with an open source vendor, we would contract migration/implementation and ongoing support services from a vendor who supports the product. In the case of FOLIO, that means looking at Ebsco or ByWater. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have had a rocky relationship with Innovative Interfaces but would like to acknowledge that they did step up during the initial COVID lockdowns providing useful resources and support for libraries around the world. Their acquisition by Proquest came as a surprise, and we still wonder whether support for Sierra will be affected despite their reassurances that it will continue to be developed. (Library type: State; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

For our Academic Discovery Service, we answered for our in-house custom interface, as that is becoming the default interface right now. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

III did a little better this year with Sierra releases coming out with some long-requested enhancements, even though Sierra is still lacking in e-resources functionality. I feel that the newer systems are too expensive to migrate to and unsustainable to maintain with 5% cost increases for a library our size. We're staying on Sierra due to Covid-19 budget reasons and waiting to see if Folio will develop enough for us to feel comfortable to move to it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have been deeply dissatisfied with the support we have received from iii in the past... and our customer care representative seems to change annually. However, within the past year we have noticed an increase in the responsiveness to any of our open tickets. We are frustrated at how any additional features come with hefty price tags in addition to the large amount we already pay annually. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Our satisfaction with Sierra has fallen a lot since Innovative were acquired by Proquest - that is what is prompting us to consider moving to Folio. We probably would be pursuing this much harder if it weren't for the pandemic. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

We are part of a national consortium. We tender for a new ILS every five years. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

I have come to appreciate Innovative's Sierra system now that we are looking at an open source library services platform that must be built from scratch. I like learning new things but open source seems to require significant time spent learning a tremendous amount of computer coding. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our previous director purchased and migrated the library to Sierra without consulting any one with the knowledge of what the library actually needed. We are paying for parts of the ILS that we do not need and will not need in our service to the public. This ILS has become a financial burden and will have to thoroughly discussed with financial stakeholders and Library Management. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Because the [...] is a member of [...], we must use Sierra and EBSCO's Discovery Service. Only if the whole consortium changes can we change. Not everyone is happy with Innovative and there is talk of changing, but that would take years before that would happen. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have both implemented both the OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service and the EBSCO Discovery Service (EDS) through our statewide consortium. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Support and road mapped features from iii have improved since being acquired by Ex Libris. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Sierra's ERM is the biggest thorn in our side. It's ineffective. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

[...] We have worked with our library automation partner for several years now and have a great working relationship with them. Though our ILS meet most of our library's needs, there is room for improvement (which can be made through their innovation process). Overall, we are happy with their services and would continue to use them in the future. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

we hope to have Vega in place 2021 (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We would need dedicated staff to implement an open source catalog. We do not have the funding presently to switch to an open source ILS. We considered it before the pandemic and found it not feasible for this reason. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Innovative's support has gone from bad a few years ago to exceptional in the past year or so. Our main issue with Innovative/Sierra is that the public interface is woefully outdated and has accessibility issues. There is limited room to customize the look and functions. It appears III has given up on trying to modernize it. My assumption is that now that III has been acquired by ProQuest, Sierra has a limited lifespan. I can't see ProQuest keeping Sierra and it's Ex Libris ILS offerings indefinitely. Seems like a product line will eventually be sunsetted in the name of reducing redundancy. I assume that it will be Sierra that will go. So while we're not actively looking for a new ILS, the possibility of having to migrate in the next 2-3 years is in the back of our minds. Also, as our library reduces it's subscriptions to integrating resources what drew us to Innovative two decades ago--its robust serials module--is no longer that important. We're getting to the point where Sierra is more ILS than we need. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We would consider a supported open source solution since our internal IT would not be able to support it. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Empezamos a implementar Alma/Primo en setiembre de 2020 y vamos a salir en producción en julio de 2021. No tengo aún conocimiento suficiente de las nuevas herramientas para valorarla, por lo que he decidido responder la encuesta sobre Sierra/Encore, productos con los que ahora mismo aún trabajamos. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] is migrating from Sierra to Alma by now. We can't considerate about de new system yet. We still rate SIERRA and EDS-Encore (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We just went live with Sierra in December. We are still implementing new modules. Implementation team has been helpful. Trainer is excellent. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra ILS is not meant for managing electronic resources. It's primarily for print collections. Innovative's customer service lacks the responsiveness we need. They don't respond to inquires until 2 weeks later with little or no engagement. It's quite frustrating. They promised us to implement SSO but that hasn't happened. We've been trying to get it to work since 2018. (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

While [...] was a great consortium that benefited our college for many years, AccessIT and LIRN provided us with an incentive to reduce our consortium and ILS costs in order to invest in our own electronic and print collections more fully. We were not terribly thrilled with Sierra for our small library. Unfortunately, the ILS marketplace is not rich with products for smaller academics. We think AccessIt will meet our needs well. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)


Soutron

top

we are currently between ILS systems. The old one has expired and the new has not been implemented yet (Library type: Corporate; collection size: small)


Spydus

top

Our current system is not geared towards academic libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Help desk response time has improved significantly this year. The voting portal for new features has helped to make the product useful for more sites as a whole. New features in development like Microsoft Azure AI for analysing images, and a staff mobile app are welcome. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Overall we are satisfied with both Civica and Spydus. Uptime is good and updates sufficiently frequent. Testing of upgrades could be better and some changes are rolled out as default rather than options which can cause issues. We were so unsatisfied with the Archives module and the response of Civica to our requirements that we have migrated our image and historic document collection out to a different platform and vendor. We are significantly dissatisfied with the Events module but have not yet found an alternative. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The product is constantly being upgraded to improve workflows for libraries (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are have been using Spydus since 2003 and the system is now fully web based. There have been changes with the system but staff are happy with functionality most of the time. We do have some issues with speed at times. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Consideration to migrate to a new system is based on existing contract and mandatory procurement processes. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Ongoing support issues compounded by new developments in the product which the support staff aren't knowledgeable in. Recent changes in account management approach are beginning to have a positive impact though. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Development of the Spydus system by Civica can be a long and arduous task even when we pay for the development work in question. Customer support is satisfactory, however, it feels very fragmented with the support team spread right across the country and development work in Austrialia. This can lead to different approaches to support by members of the Spydus team. In general we are happy with Spydus but would consider a move to an open source solution if it were not for the huge amount of work when migrating systems. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] The response to the eresources question is not great because the supporting guides/help information are pretty unhelpful which has caused a lot of work for us in trying to understand - and especially with people who've never worked with this sort of system before. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)


Symphony

top

When our library undertook its last ILS migration, open source options were considered, but acquiring an open source system, with the support that we needed, was more expensive than migrating with our current vendor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Symphony provides excellent functionality but the staff interface is old fashioned and the browser based interface is slow to develop. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Although product looks good, getting necessary corporate IT buy-in and support for OS is challenging (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Overall the support from SirsiDynix has vastly improved. We had a few support cases in 2020 that must have gone to the wrong support department or person because they took months to resolve and should have taken days, if even that long. At least it seems that overall the company cares about their clients and the communities they serve which is always important but even more so in the current climate in the US. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have overall been happy with our ILS, particularly the costing that has been given to our system, which is a driving factor. However, our Discovery layer could definitely use work (I wasn't sure if we should add it here or not). SirsiDynix is definitely falling behind companies like Bibliocommons in terms of presentation of content and creative search structures. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We would like to convert to a system that is cloud-based and is flexible enough for a cooperative to use. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

we don't deal directly with Sirsi, it's all done through the consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

While extremely satisfied with the support and customer service provided by SirsiDynix, the pricing structure is untenable. The inability of the company to provide any customization without additional fees, despite charging a healthy amount for annual licensing, is an unreasonable practice and contributes to ongoing inflation of the cost. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We will seriously consider Folio in a couple of years when our current SirsiDynix contract comes up for renewal. It will be much more fully featured and mature by then. We're very interested in Folio because of existing consortium connections (GALILEO) and Folio's integration with the EDS Knowledge Base. Our future ILS solution needs to make management of electronic objects infinitely easier. But SD lags so far behind ... and in the long run, we need one product to manage all collections, including a shrinking print collection, not two. And one point of user interaction with collections, not two. But SD lags behind ... (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Prior to pandemic we were considering our options as our current contract will be expiring. That is on hold due to staffing and budget. I cannot list products under consideration based on our municipal procurement policies. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

While we will not be implementing an opensource ILS in the future, we do utilize OS tech in other areas of the institution. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

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

Customer support from vendor has been excellent at all times, but especially during this very strange year. Their move to cloud based products is something we welcome, but complete functionality is not yet available - something we look forward to in the future. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] finds itself in the situation of being on an ILS platform better suited to large consortial public library implementations (from [...] separated many years ago). This ILS does not interface well with the College's Student Information System (soon to migrate to Workday), nor does it interface well with the library's electronic holdings. This library is very interested in the FOLIO project, but will likely create an RFI to see what vendors may offer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Due to the COVID-19 situation our move to Symphony was delayed until August 2020 so our time with it has been somewhat limited (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We moved to SirsiDynix Workflows through a consortium to save some money and I am frankly shocked at how non-user friendly it is and how terrible it looks. It is clear that SirsiDynix also consider it an outdated system and put no effort into improving it in any way for the 21st century. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)

The customer support staff, consultants and trainers at SirsiDynix continue to be the best to work with. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Part of [...] library consortia (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Happy with our current system (part of a statewide network) but if the decision is made to change LMS as a network we would change also. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are now in the Kotui Consortium as if June 2020 (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The library is trapped in a contract with 5 years remaining. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

The number of items includes ebooks. Excluding ebooks, the tally is 40,306 - wasn't sure exactly what you wanted. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] he consortium is evaluating Aspen Discovery with ByWater Solutions support to replace SirsiDynix Enterprise. Some areas of this survey seem a bit dated in terms of the solutions now offered and utilized by libraries is much larger than solely the ILS specific to this survey. [...] utilizes BLUEcloud Analytics, BLUEcloud Mobile, eResource Central, Mobile Staff (formerly MobileCirc), and Enterprise as part of its Library Services Platform (LSP) from SirsiDynix. EBSCO Discovery Service, OpenAthens, OCLC WorldShare ILL are also utilized within the consortium platform of library solutions. It is however understood that the survey requires some year-to-year consistency in its questions and responses in order to provide insight on vendor or platform satisfaction over time. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We returned to SirsiDynix after 5 years on iii Sierra, having been a SD customer 2 yrs. prior to that. The difference in customer service is striking, and SD doesn't gouge us on everything like Innovative did. Symphony lags Sierra in a few respects, but has other advantages. Zero regrets! SD is a more reliable partner for us. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We're looking at other ILSes, but COVID is sucking up a lot of the time and energy we planned to use for that. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

Thank you for conducting this study. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Library isn't interested. Administration may look at cost cutting where library is concerned. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

SirsiDynix provides top-notch customer service. That said, the prioritization of bug fixes, customer enhancement requests, and the like, is a disaster. They have a rather odd "voting" system whereby customers vote on their top enhancement issues but only a few are ever corrected, and many known bugs have been "under consideration" for a fix since before 2010. The client-based interface "Workflows" is dated and tasks are not grouped in an effective manner - one has to switch between "wizards" to accomplish tasks that should be on the same screen. SirsiDynix was one of the few vendors that was able to meet our requirements the last time we selected a vendor (in 2015), but since then Koha has made leaps and bounds in development and we are now giving it serious consideration as we look at selecting a new ILS vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

One of the strengths of this vendor is there support model, the APAC support team are very quick to respond to issues, and they offer a very good customer support portal. There has been good development with their mobile app and digital content management, but there are still improvements that need to be made with vendor app integration. Overall we are very satisfied with the performance of this vendor, and we have a very positive working relationship with them. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

This ILS in fact is probably too sophisticated for our requirements which are basic. Its acquisition was partly due to the systems librarian having worked with this company before in a much larger library. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

SirsiDynix has a good product unfortunately, like many libraries, we do not have a fulltime staff member than can be solely dedicated to oversight and management of the ILS. We operate with more staff on the front line rather than having a dedicated ILS (Systems Librarian). It is difficult for us to maneuver if any shifts need to be made. It involves extra payments to have Sirsi implement changes and requires getting in queue with other systems to accomplish. We would like to have the system be more user friendly and involve less SQL. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

While our product is very good, our high satisfaction is also due to the outstanding customer support and the overall corporate culture of our vendor. There is an overarching value of care and kindness that we appreciate greatly. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

SirsiDynix Symphony is very useable. It has its quirks, but overall functions as we need it to. We are part of the Wyoming Consortium so use whatever product they get. Users have some issues placing holds, the interlibrary loan VDX program is difficult to use, the search engine is unwieldy and not terribly accurate, and oftentimes there are a lot of steps to do one function. BlueCloud Analytics is not easy to use at all. Checking out and discharging works quite well, cataloging via WorkFlows is easy, and patron searching through Enterprise is easy if the patron knows how to spell. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Would like to see BlueCloud modules mature. Would like something better to replace BookMyne as part of our subscription instead of paying extra. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

I am not the cataloger, but I think our items is now lower than 83,697. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are a school community library in the[...]. We are supplied and supported with the ILS by Public Library Services. This works well as we add our school resources too but with varying access levels. We will be advised of the need to change and go with the network choice once the SA network agrees to change and migrate. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Consortia just signed a new contract with Sirsi Dynix. I am not directly involved with this. or with the troubleshooting. Overall, pleased with what we have for our needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Would like the vendor to put more development effort into their public facing software: the Discovery Layer called Enterprise/Portfolio and their mobile app "BlueCloud Mobile". (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

For the right price, I would consider any discovery service system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are disappointed in the performance of Symphony LMS in a consortial environment (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are switching from SirsiDynix Symphony to ByWater Solutions Koha this year, with the Aspen Discovery layer (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

[...] sites use both EBSCO Discovery Service (EDS) and SirsiDynix Enterprise for their discovery service. Some use EDS as the primary gateway to their collection, and others use Enterprise, but all sites have instances of both available to their users. FOLIO ERM is being implemented for one site currently. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are a research library so our books are not technically checked out. We don't use all of the functions of Symphony. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We do not have the IT staff or resources for this, either as an institution or as a consortia (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)

While there are good open-source solutions, we do not have the personnel to implement or manage open-source products. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Open Source is cost prohibitive for a library our size. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have only been using Symphony for 6 months so still sorting out the configuration and understanding its functionality. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Workflows has to be one the worst products on the market. SiriDynix customer service is certainly not a model to which one should aspire. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

As a small private college, our IT and financial resources are very limiting, which has prevented us from procuring a discovery service or any alternative ILS systems beyond what is available to us through our state library consortium. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

El análisis del mercado no ha permitido encontrar un LSP completo y probablemente se requiera un desarrollo propio que logre las funcionalidades que esperamos. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)

Number of items include: eBooks, streaming video, print and audiovisual. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are very interested, but would need the product to be a little further along in production. Like most institutions, we've taken a pretty big hit financially, and while it would be great to redirect our money toward open source solutions, we just don't have the capacity to be on the front-lines of adoption just yet. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)


TIND ILS

top

We migrated from SirsiDynix Symphony to TIND this year. Our staff were very enthusiastic about the change, even though we lost some functionality with TIND. Overall, it has been a good move for us. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)


TinyCat

top

no budget makes the current ILS the best option even though not necessarily the best option. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)


V-Smart

top

The migration to OCLC's WSM is in progress and the library (along with the Canadian War Museum's library) is scheduled to go live in February 2021. The decision was taken by IT and Upper Management. While we are satisfied with V-Smart, we believe we will be with WMS as well. They both have pros and cons. Thank you. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)


V-smart

top

Our satisfaction with our ILS vendor's customer service is low because: 1. The front-line employee who was regularly assigned to our support tickets was not knowledgable about the product, misread emails, and was quick to close tickets without resolving the actual problem. The employee no longer works for the company. 2. Answers to some support tickets can take months to resolve because they are forwarded to another department. It sometimes feels like they're forgotten. An open-source ILS is not really an option for our institution because we do not have an employee with sufficient programming/IT skills to maintain or customize the ILS. It was briefly entertained during our last call for tender for an ILS and rejected for this reason. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

SIGB plutôt destiné à des médiathèques importantes ou à des réseaux de médiathèques (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)


VERSO

top

For our library to consider an open source ILS we would need tech support from an outside vendor or consortium arrangement. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I did not answer the question How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? because we do not use Verso to mange our electronic resources. An n/a option would have been helpful here. Thanks (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

VERSO is not a bad product, it is just not intended for an academic setting. There is no SSO, databases are clunky to access, and it creates more work than it solves in the long run. We are very interested in Alma, but concerned about costs and transparency. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

VERSO does not allow a MARC record export for print records of only a certain type, you have to download all print records then weed out the ones you don't want included. For example, when updating the discovery service, we want our print materials but we don't want those that are ILL, reserve, marked as equipment, etc. I have asked Auto-Graphics about this and they said they have added it to a future update. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Specific decisions about products are made in [...] at our main campus. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

While customer service has always been very good from the representatives at Autographics, the system as an ILS is not intuitive, especially for staff who have never worked in a library before. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

Not sure what open source ILS is referring too. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are working with Auto Graphics to provide a Discovery Service in the near future. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The customer service with Verso is outstanding. Any time we have had issues with the system, they have been able to help us solve the problem either directly, or by figuring out the bug that has caused the issue. They are very good at listening to what problems we are having and working through problem solving with us. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Verso works well for our library. However, because the state of [...] no longer provides a workable statewide ILL system, we may be forced to join a consortium within the next several years. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I don't know what an open source ILS is. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our current system has been in place since we first automated. We have discussed migrating to a new service, but the costs involved are daunting. VERSO works, it is just a little clunky/clumsy to use in some spots. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We were much more pleased with VERSO prior to their big "update" in 2019? Since then it has been one issue after another to be fixed. It was explained the "update" was to make it more friendly for devices such as cellphones, but I have a difficult time navigating VERSO on my cell phone, and I am familiar with it. A regular patron would have a much more difficult time. Also the searching since the update is horrid. And as in every version of VERSO I have used in the past 7 years, it requires way too many clicks to get where you want to go. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We try to attend any of the information or training sessions available to us that we think would be relevant. Sometimes I feel that the presenter doesn't go as in-depth as I would like. It tends to go off topic. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

I was recently hired to fill the vacancy resulting from the previous director's resignation. My previous experience with an ILS was through our local school system. I have no experience with our ILS system prior to August of 2020, so I have no impressions to impart other than finding some of the tutorials helpful while learning to navigate through VERSO. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

It's very difficult to customize Verso for our needs, when we ask for help, we don't get it in a prompt or meaningful manner. It seems like there are so many things we could do with Verso, but we don't have the power to make changes. I've repeatedly asked for in-person help and not received it. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

There are aspects of Verso that we love, but some of simple tasks it is not able to do as well as the system we migrated from. Our old system allowed to jump from patron to patron much easier than Verso, and this is still something that we greatly miss. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

i wish you could look up an item by format in your library collection (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] is not a library, per se, but serves as the administrator for the ILS that is shared by its member public libraries. [...] seeks to handle as many ILS support questions from its members as possible. That said, the customer service provided by Auto-Graphics has been exceptional for many years, in response to [...] -originated help requests and also those originating from member libraries. Support/responsiveness and cost are two primary pros for the Auto-Graphics Verso ILS. Separately, because we administer the ILS for a group of libraries, the "number of items in the library's collection" reported above is for all the library members of [...] that share in the Verso ILS, not for [...] ' own single collection. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

This is a branch of the main library. The holdings are rotated between the main library and 4 branches. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The Vendor has always been open to suggestions for improvement and to grow with the technology needs of our libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)


Virtua

top

We are pretty happy with our current ILS but we anticipate having to migrate within the coming few years because this product is no longer under development and we expect it to be phased out by the vendor soonish. We like the vendor but are concerned that we wouldn't be able to afford their more current products, so we anticipate switching vendors. Open source seems like a good option for us as a potential way to have more control over our ILS while saving money in the long term if we are able to phase out vendor support. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

This question was difficult for us: How satisfied is the library overall with the company* from which it acquired its current ILS? We acquired the system from one company but now a second owns it. This second company recently was acquired by a third. We decided to answer about the company that owned it most of last year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

We are currently in the middle of switching to WMS from Virtual/VTLS. Next year I will have more information on WMS. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)


Voyager

top

We have no strong preference for Open Source or for Commercial (closed source) products; more likely would be a strong preference for a hosted system whether it be Open or Closed. Also of importance is that it be a modular system (see above re continued Blacklight for discovery). (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The Library also has an electronic resources management system (ERMS), separate from its ILS. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Voyager was a terrific system, but it is now badly outdated. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

We have a quasi-consortial arrangement with another seminary that complicates any discussion of ILS migrations. We share an ILS, but we do not share a discovery layer. Koha, Folio are the favored candidates at the moment for ILS/LSP simply because they support (or will theoretically soon support) native OPAC functionality (renewing books, etc.) within EDS. We are fairly traditional in our approach and prefer our paradigms intact, so Koha may be the top option at the moment. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The library is in the onboarding stage of implementing Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We do not have the staff to manage open source options. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are quite satisfied with the technical support that Ex Libris provides for Voyager, but they are no longer releasing meaningful updates to the product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We would not consider Open Source without a partner like ByWater. We're too minimally staffed (3 librarians and a handful of student workers serving 2300-2600 bodies from pre-freshmen to doctoral students) to do otherwise. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

FOLIO is an excellent, active consortium with many highly dedicated developers, librarians, and vendors involved. We are hosting FOLIO with EBSCO and have been very satisfied with their support for our July 2021 full rollout (we are already live with FOLIO ERM). (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] has purchased Alma and Primo VE and is currently in the process of migrating to the new systems. Our current expected go live is June 2021. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are migrating to another ILS through the same vendor Ex Libris (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are currently in the process of migrating from Voyager to FOLIO. The above responses were based on our experiences with Voyager. Note that we would prefer our migration not be publically announced until the press release goes out. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The cost to migrate to another Discovery system or to a more user-friendly OPAC is far too great for the confines of our library budget. We are a small university and EBSCO and Ex Libris provide great support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We enjoy a good relationship with ExLibris. In general, faults with their software are few, and well tended to. The slowing pace of new Voyager version releases is a bit disheartening, even while the stability of the last few versions has been reassuring. We are observing the release schedules for new versions of its other products, such as ALMA and SUMMON, as the better measure of the vendor's desirability as we consider a next generation ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)


WorldShare Management Services

top

Why do this? The costs are not less if you consider you have to run it yourself or pay someone to run it for you. Why not just have a full-fledged product not dependent on the whim of others for development? (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

While the discovery service and ILS are generally good from an end-user point of view (and certainly fit for purpose), we look forward to the promised improvements to the admin side, which by the providers' own admission is very dated now, and not particularly intuitive or user-friendly. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

previous ILS was open source, but it was an island on its own working around OCLC products. it would not be out of the question but it would not happen for a long time since we just went live with WMS this year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Limited staffing (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our only problem with the WMS system is the fact we did not purchase the report designer module. It was not yet available when we migrated to the system; and, we still have not had the necessary funds to purchase it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The only thing missing from our current system is the ability to "shelf browse" electronic and print books concurrently. They have a print book shelf browse function. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Everything works great, the only issue is a common "broken link" issue for sources we should have access to. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

As a medium-sized academic library, there is no realistic path forward in open source implementation outside of a consortium model that does not exist currently in our context. We can never justify the payroll costs of attracting and retaining skilled open source implementers or developers locally against our other budget priorities, especially as e-collections costs continue to skyrocket in comparison to our fixed or lowered funding. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are just completing the migration to WMS and WorldCat Discovery, so any impressions are very new. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We do not have the IT resources to support an open source solution (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Worldshare Management Services could be an excellent LMS but continues to suffer due to OCLC continued expansion into other ventures which leaves less (much needed) development time for WMS. WMS has been on the market for over a decade and is only now receiving updates that allow it to handle bulk edits of items (in small batches). It is also suffers from server inconsistencies which often leads to outages (some times once or twice a week multiple weeks in a row). With the advent of Folio and Ex Libris's continued major iterative updates of Alma, WMS is beginning to feel like a flagship platform from a decade ago, and not the platform it needs to be for continued competition in the shrinking ILS/LSP market. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

It is quite possible that in the future we will switch to something else. Possibly AI will play a big role in making resources accessible. We are exploring the possibilities (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We generally like OCLC, but WMS still leaves a lot to be desired with searching and basic functions like ILL in the Discovery interface, which have been disappointing. They also charge a lot for add-on services that would possibly solve the problem; that is something I expect of proprietary vendors, and I find it disappointing in a non-profit. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

WorldShare Management Services does not adequately cater to the needs of a public library. Enhancement requests are largely ignored or denied. Customer support seem reluctant to escalate technical issues. Lack of customisability frequently results in increased manual labour for staff. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)