Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Horizon


2021 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction41 1 5 4 6 15 7 3 76.377
ILS Functionality42 1 2 1 2 3 12 11 7 3 66.267
Print Functionality41 3 1 3 17 11 6 77.227
Electronic Functionality41 2 4 3 2 5 4 8 8 2 3 64.956
Company Satisfaction40 1 2 1 4 14 12 6 77.207
Support Satisfaction40 2 2 9 16 11 87.758
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty40 1 1 1 1 2 4 10 11 9 87.088
Open Source Interest36 8 6 2 4 1 5 1 2 4 2 03.643

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS43 613.95%
Considering new Interface43 24.65%
System Installed on time?43 00.00%

Average Collection size: 300957

TypeCount
Public0
Academic0
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00016
[3] 100,001-250,00012
[4] 250,001-1,000,00012
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0002
[6] over 10,000,0010


Statistics according to type and size categories

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

2020 Horizon Responses by Sector
HorizonallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS826.89 116.2751237.35256.80533
ILSFunctionality826.91 116.5551237.30257.08533
PrintFunctionality827.72 117.0951237.83257.56533
ElectronicFunctionality825.46 114.0051236.30255.52533
SatisfactionCustomerSupport817.84 118.4551227.73257.52533
CompanyLoyalty797.25 117.5551217.29247.17533



2020 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction82 2 1 6 6 6 32 17 12 76.897
ILS Functionality82 1 1 2 3 5 11 28 20 11 76.917
Print Functionality82 1 3 5 21 31 21 87.728
Electronic Functionality82 4 4 5 5 5 9 20 13 10 7 65.466
Company Satisfaction82 1 2 4 1 5 23 25 21 87.438
Support Satisfaction81 1 3 2 6 11 24 34 97.848
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty79 3 2 1 1 5 4 17 23 23 87.258
Open Source Interest71 16 5 9 11 5 4 8 4 6 3 03.483

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS82 2834.15%
Considering new Interface82 67.32%
System Installed on time?82 00.00%

Average Collection size: 402927

TypeCount
Public54
Academic17
School3
Consortium3
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00027
[3] 100,001-250,00019
[4] 250,001-1,000,00024
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0008
[6] over 10,000,0010



2019 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction83 1 4 3 1 8 19 18 18 11 66.577
ILS Functionality83 1 3 4 5 8 15 24 16 7 76.367
Print Functionality83 1 1 2 3 11 26 18 21 77.347
Electronic Functionality82 8 2 6 9 7 13 11 13 8 5 54.885
Company Satisfaction83 3 1 5 10 10 18 18 18 76.837
Support Satisfaction81 2 2 3 7 7 9 23 28 97.388
Support Improvement80 1 3 2 6 20 8 13 12 15 56.347
Company Loyalty80 4 2 2 2 4 3 11 11 15 26 96.758
Open Source Interest79 29 11 5 6 7 4 5 5 2 5 02.701

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS84 2125.00%
Considering new Interface84 67.14%
System Installed on time?84 7589.29%

Average Collection size: 592571

TypeCount
Public57
Academic19
School0
Consortium2
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00020
[3] 100,001-250,00015
[4] 250,001-1,000,00030
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00013
[6] over 10,000,0010



2018 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction99 1 1 3 5 4 12 26 18 19 10 66.286
ILS Functionality99 2 4 7 7 16 19 18 19 7 66.006
Print Functionality96 1 7 3 19 27 26 13 76.997
Electronic Functionality94 4 8 15 11 9 10 11 12 10 4 24.505
Company Satisfaction98 1 2 7 7 11 14 19 23 14 86.497
Support Satisfaction95 1 3 4 11 10 19 20 27 97.147
Support Improvement97 1 1 3 13 34 6 13 11 15 56.015
Company Loyalty97 3 2 7 4 3 14 9 14 19 22 96.317
Open Source Interest98 25 11 16 7 8 9 4 9 5 4 03.102

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS100 3535.00%
Considering new Interface100 1313.00%
System Installed on time?100 9090.00%

Average Collection size: 517702

TypeCount
Public58
Academic25
School1
Consortium5
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00027
[3] 100,001-250,00026
[4] 250,001-1,000,00029
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00013
[6] over 10,000,0010



2017 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction131 1 5 3 7 19 15 37 31 13 76.547
ILS Functionality131 7 5 8 14 23 38 32 4 76.317
Print Functionality131 2 6 11 13 29 42 28 87.288
Electronic Functionality129 5 8 14 14 9 22 19 20 13 5 54.865
Company Satisfaction131 5 2 9 13 12 31 46 13 86.807
Support Satisfaction129 1 5 3 4 14 11 25 37 29 87.018
Support Improvement129 2 1 2 6 10 50 10 21 15 12 55.805
Company Loyalty129 4 1 7 8 6 13 21 16 32 21 86.297
Open Source Interest129 31 17 17 9 13 14 9 8 7 4 03.122

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS133 4231.58%
Considering new Interface133 1813.53%
System Installed on time?133 11687.22%

Average Collection size: 847056

TypeCount
Public82
Academic29
School2
Consortium7
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00042
[3] 100,001-250,00028
[4] 250,001-1,000,00044
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00013
[6] over 10,000,0011



2016 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction97 2 1 6 10 15 30 22 11 76.767
ILS Functionality99 2 6 2 14 13 33 21 8 76.567
Print Functionality99 1 2 6 7 26 36 21 87.498
Electronic Functionality97 4 5 7 16 3 12 14 21 9 6 75.116
Company Satisfaction98 3 7 5 17 22 27 17 87.017
Support Satisfaction97 1 1 2 3 8 9 21 28 24 87.228
Support Improvement99 2 1 2 4 7 23 20 13 14 13 56.066
Company Loyalty99 3 2 3 1 9 8 12 20 20 21 96.557
Open Source Interest95 28 12 13 3 7 7 10 8 5 2 02.992

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS99 2828.28%
Considering new Interface99 1515.15%
System Installed on time?99 9292.93%

Average Collection size: 1123422

TypeCount
Public56
Academic24
School2
Consortium6
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00031
[3] 100,001-250,00019
[4] 250,001-1,000,00029
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00014
[6] over 10,000,0011



2015 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction108 1 3 7 7 13 21 28 22 6 76.237
ILS Functionality108 2 3 4 10 13 22 27 21 6 76.197
Print Functionality108 1 1 1 12 18 22 37 16 87.117
Electronic Functionality106 5 11 13 9 7 17 14 15 12 3 54.615
Company Satisfaction108 1 3 7 6 10 14 27 29 11 86.547
Support Satisfaction106 1 3 7 4 9 5 29 31 17 86.827
Support Improvement105 3 3 11 29 13 20 15 11 56.106
Company Loyalty108 6 3 10 1 5 8 13 21 18 23 96.137
Open Source Interest104 33 16 10 9 7 9 11 4 3 2 02.622

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS109 3733.94%
Considering new Interface109 1816.51%
System Installed on time?109 9788.99%

Average Collection size: 479033

TypeCount
Public61
Academic30
School1
Consortium6
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00030
[3] 100,001-250,00026
[4] 250,001-1,000,00034
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00014
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction127 5 8 2 10 26 20 31 21 4 75.816
ILS Functionality127 4 7 10 15 21 19 31 19 1 75.556
Print Functionality127 2 1 1 3 10 10 15 28 40 17 86.787
Electronic Functionality125 9 13 17 13 19 17 16 9 10 2 44.034
Company Satisfaction127 1 6 4 3 11 25 15 23 27 12 86.046
Support Satisfaction126 2 4 2 5 7 16 11 30 35 14 86.457
Support Improvement127 3 4 4 4 15 42 16 14 14 11 55.505
Company Loyalty125 8 7 5 4 8 18 12 21 27 15 85.777
Open Source Interest127 30 12 13 10 18 16 8 11 2 7 03.343

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS128 5542.97%
Considering new Interface128 2620.31%
System Installed on time?128 10884.38%

Average Collection size: 478138

TypeCount
Public81
Academic30
School2
Consortium5
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00041
[3] 100,001-250,00029
[4] 250,001-1,000,00033
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00015
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction104 3 1 11 11 15 14 18 25 6 85.936
ILS Functionality104 1 1 7 10 11 15 13 22 18 6 75.716
Print Functionality103 1 3 7 15 10 18 31 18 86.897
Electronic Functionality102 7 12 11 13 13 11 12 11 10 2 34.194
Company Satisfaction103 2 2 5 5 8 16 11 22 18 14 76.117
Support Satisfaction103 1 3 4 3 9 10 11 11 28 23 86.607
Support Improvement100 4 1 1 4 10 36 9 12 8 15 55.725
Company Loyalty103 8 2 3 11 6 17 10 14 15 17 55.646
Open Source Interest103 25 9 12 10 6 16 7 8 2 8 03.433

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS108 4844.44%
Considering new Interface108 3128.70%
System Installed on time?108 9386.11%

Average Collection size: 631804

TypeCount
Public68
Academic20
School3
Consortium7
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00029
[3] 100,001-250,00023
[4] 250,001-1,000,00038
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00011
[6] over 10,000,0011



2012 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction140 4 4 5 9 11 21 14 44 20 8 75.817
ILS Functionality140 2 5 6 13 10 19 17 41 17 10 75.766
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction140 2 3 6 14 12 17 21 32 25 8 75.806
Support Satisfaction139 1 2 5 2 15 19 16 25 36 18 86.437
Support Improvement137 3 3 4 5 8 55 12 18 16 13 55.665
Company Loyalty139 16 2 10 7 10 18 19 20 19 18 75.336
Open Source Interest136 33 12 21 8 9 17 11 12 6 7 03.383

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS145 7249.66%
Considering new Interface145 4128.28%
System Installed on time?145 12988.97%

Average Collection size: 509664

TypeCount
Public103
Academic24
School1
Consortium9
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0007
[2] 10,001-100,00036
[3] 100,001-250,00030
[4] 250,001-1,000,00041
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00018
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction149 2 4 6 5 11 28 22 44 17 10 75.916
ILS Functionality141 1 2 6 11 8 21 24 36 20 12 76.016
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction149 2 2 9 9 15 12 27 36 29 8 75.946
Support Satisfaction147 3 3 6 12 13 23 29 40 18 86.557
Support Improvement147 1 1 6 3 12 49 17 23 15 20 55.976
Company Loyalty149 10 5 8 5 12 17 21 29 23 19 75.726
Open Source Interest146 31 15 16 11 10 16 14 11 12 10 03.754

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS150 8254.67%
Considering new Interface150 4530.00%
System Installed on time?150 13992.67%

Average Collection size: 639134

TypeCount
Public101
Academic31
School4
Consortium8
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00037
[3] 100,001-250,00037
[4] 250,001-1,000,00047
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00014
[6] over 10,000,0011



2010 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction179 1 1 9 9 20 24 31 44 27 13 75.996
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction179 4 3 19 15 18 29 22 43 19 7 75.316
Support Satisfaction179 4 4 14 9 23 17 23 45 24 16 75.736
Support Improvement179 10 8 12 10 25 55 17 23 12 7 54.805
Company Loyalty179 21 9 9 11 20 21 24 31 19 14 74.945
Open Source Interest176 31 15 15 8 17 19 16 14 14 27 04.445

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS185 10657.30%
Considering new Interface185 6535.14%
System Installed on time?185 16287.57%

Average Collection size: 399582

TypeCount
Public137
Academic27
School3
Consortium5
Special4

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00045
[3] 100,001-250,00048
[4] 250,001-1,000,00052
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00013
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction190 3 5 6 7 13 24 25 69 31 7 76.077
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction188 4 14 19 21 21 23 25 37 16 8 74.915
Support Satisfaction188 3 5 10 16 14 31 25 39 28 17 75.776
Support Improvement177 6 10 11 9 21 59 25 16 14 6 54.895
Company Loyalty186 26 9 12 9 21 30 16 26 22 15 54.755
Open Source Interest185 27 13 20 20 17 20 18 23 7 20 04.254

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS197 9045.69%
Considering new Interface197 4824.37%
System Installed on time?197 15980.71%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction206 3 3 9 18 24 20 41 54 31 3 75.686
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction206 17 10 22 25 31 33 25 27 11 5 54.324
Support Satisfaction206 8 5 16 21 20 20 37 40 31 8 75.356
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty206 25 17 17 17 24 33 21 21 14 17 54.375
Open Source Interest206 21 22 18 14 18 22 15 26 15 35 94.805

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS208 12761.06%
Considering new Interface208 5928.37%
System Installed on time?208 18990.87%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction178 1 3 5 4 10 22 48 56 24 5 76.136
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction271 17 14 22 33 46 44 40 33 14 8 44.495
Support Satisfaction270 2 10 14 14 25 32 47 58 50 18 75.896
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty269 28 17 21 21 34 65 29 29 16 9 54.355
Open Source Interest269 35 25 32 27 26 36 24 25 17 22 54.124

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS274 13649.64%
Considering new Interface274 6624.09%
System Installed on time?274 10.36%




2021 : gen: 6.37 company 7.20 loyalty 7.08 support 7.75

2020 : gen: 6.89 company 7.43 loyalty 7.25 support 7.84

2019 : gen: 6.57 company 6.83 loyalty 6.75 support 7.38

2018 : gen: 6.28 company 6.49 loyalty 6.31 support 7.14

2017 : gen: 6.54 company 6.80 loyalty 6.29 support 7.01

2016 : gen: 6.76 company 7.01 loyalty 6.55 support 7.22

2015 : gen: 6.23 company 6.54 loyalty 6.13 support 6.82

2014 : gen: 5.81 company 6.04 loyalty 5.77 support 6.45

2013 : gen: 5.93 company 6.11 loyalty 5.64 support 6.60

2012 : gen: 5.81 company 5.80 loyalty 5.33 support 6.43

2011 : gen: 5.91 company 5.94 loyalty 5.72 support 6.55

2010 : gen: 5.99 company 5.31 loyalty 4.94 support 5.73

2009 : gen: 6.07 company 4.91 loyalty 4.75 support 5.77

2008 : gen: 5.68 company 4.32 loyalty 4.37 support 5.35

2007 : gen: 6.13 company 4.49 loyalty 4.35 support 5.89

Comments (survey2020)

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)

ILS