Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Alma

Statistics according to type and size categories

The following table presents the 2020 results according to the type and size of the library.

2020 Alma Responses by Sector
AlmaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS3197.06 787.12987.12807.000000106.60
ILSFunctionality3187.26 787.27977.40807.160000107.30
PrintFunctionality3157.50 787.54967.53797.43000097.67
ElectronicFunctionality3146.94 786.86967.10806.78000096.56
SatisfactionCustomerSupport3196.23 786.31986.21806.090000106.30
CompanyLoyalty3117.12 777.01937.24797.160000107.30



2020 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction319 1 3 7 16 41 141 89 21 77.067
ILS Functionality318 3 4 18 30 122 107 34 77.267
Print Functionality315 2 1 3 10 29 90 132 48 87.508
Electronic Functionality314 2 1 4 7 19 59 115 83 24 76.947
Company Satisfaction318 3 2 7 12 13 71 101 93 16 76.807
Support Satisfaction319 6 5 13 20 47 66 94 49 19 76.237
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty311 7 2 1 3 7 23 35 78 93 62 87.127
Open Source Interest308 101 38 46 34 15 35 14 8 7 8 02.452

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS323 113.41%
Considering new Interface323 195.88%
System Installed on time?323 00.00%

Average Collection size: 1452513

TypeCount
Public0
Academic275
School0
Consortium10
Special7

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00053
[3] 100,001-250,00051
[4] 250,001-1,000,00094
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00088
[6] over 10,000,0017



2019 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction375 7 6 10 39 70 142 79 22 76.707
ILS Functionality376 5 7 15 30 48 148 87 36 76.887
Print Functionality374 1 3 1 19 32 56 114 104 44 76.977
Electronic Functionality372 2 6 7 14 48 62 116 93 24 76.657
Company Satisfaction376 8 7 15 18 43 75 115 66 29 76.387
Support Satisfaction375 3 8 12 19 28 64 91 88 43 19 65.866
Support Improvement365 4 9 5 21 52 128 49 50 22 25 55.415
Company Loyalty371 6 7 8 8 17 51 41 92 79 62 76.607
Open Source Interest372 129 51 47 42 29 28 19 11 8 8 02.302

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS383 143.66%
Considering new Interface383 71.83%
System Installed on time?383 34590.08%

Average Collection size: 1494019

TypeCount
Public0
Academic320
School0
Consortium12
Special6

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00010
[2] 10,001-100,00071
[3] 100,001-250,00053
[4] 250,001-1,000,000115
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000107
[6] over 10,000,00111



2018 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction311 2 3 4 14 34 63 118 69 4 76.557
ILS Functionality310 1 1 5 14 33 57 105 81 13 76.717
Print Functionality307 1 2 5 11 24 48 99 87 30 76.947
Electronic Functionality305 2 2 6 6 14 41 46 96 79 13 76.527
Company Satisfaction310 1 5 6 13 19 35 57 91 70 13 76.337
Support Satisfaction308 2 8 13 17 20 48 70 68 50 12 65.876
Support Improvement295 3 5 7 9 38 112 42 33 30 16 55.515
Company Loyalty305 8 5 8 6 17 33 37 71 65 55 76.587
Open Source Interest304 104 51 49 22 27 20 16 8 4 3 02.091

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS317 103.15%
Considering new Interface317 92.84%
System Installed on time?317 29191.80%

Average Collection size: 1442753

TypeCount
Public0
Academic261
School0
Consortium10
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00059
[3] 100,001-250,00039
[4] 250,001-1,000,000101
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00087
[6] over 10,000,0016



2017 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction253 4 5 8 27 50 107 43 9 76.587
ILS Functionality252 3 3 7 20 45 102 61 11 76.807
Print Functionality253 3 4 6 23 31 91 75 20 76.967
Electronic Functionality253 2 3 6 7 23 60 72 65 15 76.677
Company Satisfaction252 1 4 3 2 14 39 43 73 55 18 76.507
Support Satisfaction251 1 5 5 8 23 45 53 60 37 14 76.046
Support Improvement247 1 4 6 9 31 83 38 33 21 21 55.665
Company Loyalty249 5 5 5 5 11 29 25 57 57 50 76.727
Open Source Interest249 87 52 42 22 17 15 7 3 1 3 01.781

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS260 31.15%
Considering new Interface260 41.54%
System Installed on time?260 24293.08%

Average Collection size: 1178078

TypeCount
Public0
Academic225
School0
Consortium7
Special6

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00040
[3] 100,001-250,00039
[4] 250,001-1,000,00088
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00073
[6] over 10,000,0011



2016 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction157 2 2 2 3 5 18 28 54 33 10 76.537
ILS Functionality157 1 1 1 7 7 12 22 51 44 11 76.707
Print Functionality157 1 1 1 4 7 13 24 42 47 17 86.857
Electronic Functionality153 3 1 2 8 12 28 37 44 18 86.807
Company Satisfaction157 3 1 2 7 8 15 28 41 38 14 76.487
Support Satisfaction156 2 2 4 10 10 13 26 46 32 11 76.277
Support Improvement152 1 2 5 5 17 45 21 23 17 16 55.846
Company Loyalty155 4 3 1 2 8 16 15 34 32 40 96.887
Open Source Interest155 72 29 24 9 9 7 1 3 1 01.361

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS161 42.48%
Considering new Interface161 53.11%
System Installed on time?161 15193.79%

Average Collection size: 1375159

TypeCount
Public0
Academic138
School0
Consortium4
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0007
[2] 10,001-100,00016
[3] 100,001-250,00027
[4] 250,001-1,000,00054
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00049
[6] over 10,000,0011



2015 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction87 1 1 4 3 9 22 26 21 76.377
ILS Functionality87 1 2 2 3 9 23 29 17 1 76.377
Print Functionality86 1 1 1 4 6 17 28 22 6 76.747
Electronic Functionality86 1 2 2 3 18 30 22 8 76.887
Company Satisfaction87 1 1 1 3 1 12 15 23 22 8 76.617
Support Satisfaction87 1 1 3 2 5 15 11 28 14 7 76.267
Support Improvement84 2 2 1 10 20 10 15 16 8 56.066
Company Loyalty83 1 2 3 6 6 5 20 21 19 86.947
Open Source Interest85 32 17 14 7 5 3 3 4 01.731

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS88 22.27%
Considering new Interface88 11.14%
System Installed on time?88 8090.91%

Average Collection size: 1924546

TypeCount
Public0
Academic74
School0
Consortium2
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,0009
[3] 100,001-250,0007
[4] 250,001-1,000,00032
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00033
[6] over 10,000,0012



2014 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction46 2 1 1 4 11 17 10 76.437
ILS Functionality46 1 1 3 6 17 13 4 1 66.096
Print Functionality46 1 3 4 14 9 13 2 66.597
Electronic Functionality46 1 1 1 4 12 10 14 3 86.747
Company Satisfaction46 2 1 3 2 5 19 9 5 76.677
Support Satisfaction46 1 2 1 4 11 20 5 2 76.337
Support Improvement44 1 2 1 4 9 8 5 9 5 56.096
Company Loyalty45 1 1 2 6 2 11 13 9 86.967
Open Source Interest44 18 7 11 2 3 3 01.411

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS46 24.35%
Considering new Interface46 12.17%
System Installed on time?46 4291.30%

Average Collection size: 2463832

TypeCount
Public0
Academic40
School0
Consortium1
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0001
[3] 100,001-250,0007
[4] 250,001-1,000,00016
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00020
[6] over 10,000,0011



2013 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction15 1 1 2 1 6 4 76.207
ILS Functionality15 1 1 1 3 4 4 1 65.336
Print Functionality15 1 1 2 2 3 4 2 86.407
Electronic Functionality15 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 76.007
Company Satisfaction15 1 1 1 7 3 2 76.807
Support Satisfaction15 1 3 1 5 4 1 76.737
Support Improvement15 1 5 1 4 4 56.337
Company Loyalty16 1 1 4 6 4 87.318
Open Source Interest17 9 2 1 1 3 1 01.880

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS18 316.67%
Considering new Interface18 15.56%
System Installed on time?18 1794.44%

Average Collection size: 1468604

TypeCount
Public0
Academic16
School0
Consortium0
Special0

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



2012 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction7 1 1 2 2 1 44.864
ILS Functionality7 1 1 1 1 3 74.865
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction7 1 1 1 2 2 87.148
Support Satisfaction7 1 1 1 1 1 2 96.147
Support Improvement7 1 1 2 2 1 76.867
Company Loyalty7 2 1 4 96.439
Open Source Interest7 3 1 1 1 1 02.291

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS8 225.00%
Considering new Interface8 112.50%
System Installed on time?8 787.50%

Average Collection size: 1033620

TypeCount
Public0
Academic6
School0
Consortium0
Special0

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


1 Responses for Alma in 2011

0 Responses for Alma in 2010

0 Responses for Alma in 2009

0 Responses for Alma in 2008

0 Responses for Alma in 2007

2020 : gen: 7.06 company 6.80 loyalty 7.12 support 6.23

2019 : gen: 6.70 company 6.38 loyalty 6.60 support 5.86

2018 : gen: 6.55 company 6.33 loyalty 6.58 support 5.87

2017 : gen: 6.58 company 6.50 loyalty 6.72 support 6.04

2016 : gen: 6.53 company 6.48 loyalty 6.88 support 6.27

2015 : gen: 6.37 company 6.61 loyalty 6.94 support 6.26

2014 : gen: 6.43 company 6.67 loyalty 6.96 support 6.33

2013 : gen: 6.20 company 6.80 loyalty 7.31 support 6.73

2012 : gen: 4.86 company 7.14 loyalty 6.43 support 6.14

Comments (survey2020)

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)

ILS