Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Polaris

Statistics according to type and size categories

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

2020 Polaris Responses by Sector
PolarisallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1577.46 510777.27407.63167.501127.67
ILSFunctionality1567.34 510767.28407.40167.001127.33
PrintFunctionality1577.83 510777.69408.00168.061127.75
ElectronicFunctionality1546.21 510766.29406.30155.200126.25
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1477.30 410707.19397.33167.810127.50
CompanyLoyalty1537.10 510777.01367.31167.751127.42



2020 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction157 1 1 2 2 5 13 41 63 29 87.468
ILS Functionality156 1 1 1 1 3 7 16 44 50 32 87.348
Print Functionality157 1 1 1 2 10 29 66 47 87.838
Electronic Functionality154 5 2 3 3 8 18 40 36 26 13 66.216
Company Satisfaction153 1 2 1 1 15 26 35 48 24 87.107
Support Satisfaction147 1 2 2 3 15 13 31 40 39 87.308
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty153 5 2 1 3 12 16 37 41 36 87.108
Open Source Interest136 46 16 14 9 5 19 10 8 6 3 02.772

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS163 127.36%
Considering new Interface163 00.00%
System Installed on time?163 00.00%

Average Collection size: 634438

TypeCount
Public142
Academic6
School1
Consortium12
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00054
[3] 100,001-250,00035
[4] 250,001-1,000,00038
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00022
[6] over 10,000,0012



2019 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction220 5 5 10 25 51 77 47 87.418
ILS Functionality219 6 4 7 31 58 70 43 87.348
Print Functionality215 1 1 1 1 2 5 17 39 82 66 87.748
Electronic Functionality218 6 2 6 15 18 28 22 54 34 33 76.197
Company Satisfaction216 2 3 4 5 10 28 23 52 51 38 76.757
Support Satisfaction214 1 2 4 10 7 22 28 33 54 53 86.948
Support Improvement212 2 1 8 7 19 72 26 18 28 31 55.945
Company Loyalty210 7 6 6 5 11 24 23 43 47 38 86.457
Open Source Interest208 62 28 24 17 20 30 9 4 4 10 02.702

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS227 198.37%
Considering new Interface227 167.05%
System Installed on time?227 20389.43%

Average Collection size: 491957

TypeCount
Public198
Academic9
School1
Consortium14
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00021
[2] 10,001-100,00086
[3] 100,001-250,00042
[4] 250,001-1,000,00044
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00018
[6] over 10,000,0011



2018 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction258 1 2 1 4 3 11 20 77 86 53 87.398
ILS Functionality256 2 1 4 3 11 22 69 99 45 87.408
Print Functionality252 4 1 4 6 12 46 121 58 87.678
Electronic Functionality253 8 4 4 6 12 29 45 59 52 34 76.437
Company Satisfaction252 5 4 3 13 8 28 35 57 61 38 86.597
Support Satisfaction251 1 5 3 7 15 19 28 54 62 57 86.947
Support Improvement247 8 3 9 6 26 79 30 27 30 29 55.705
Company Loyalty247 10 2 7 9 11 34 19 49 57 49 86.527
Open Source Interest248 69 31 36 22 29 32 12 6 4 7 02.642

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS270 228.15%
Considering new Interface270 269.63%
System Installed on time?270 24891.85%

Average Collection size: 427048

TypeCount
Public243
Academic9
School0
Consortium17
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00020
[2] 10,001-100,00099
[3] 100,001-250,00050
[4] 250,001-1,000,00058
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00022
[6] over 10,000,0010



2017 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction263 1 4 1 7 14 31 73 87 45 87.258
ILS Functionality261 2 6 4 9 21 85 93 41 87.348
Print Functionality263 1 1 2 2 3 9 14 50 104 77 87.718
Electronic Functionality257 4 2 14 6 15 24 43 57 59 33 86.447
Company Satisfaction259 3 2 4 5 14 34 32 63 63 39 76.717
Support Satisfaction248 2 3 4 8 11 15 30 69 61 45 76.907
Support Improvement244 11 2 6 12 24 69 23 35 29 33 55.755
Company Loyalty255 9 5 3 7 20 23 29 47 54 58 96.607
Open Source Interest256 90 28 38 23 26 22 12 7 4 6 02.322

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS267 207.49%
Considering new Interface267 3011.24%
System Installed on time?267 24792.51%

Average Collection size: 418065

TypeCount
Public228
Academic11
School3
Consortium21
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00011
[2] 10,001-100,000119
[3] 100,001-250,00051
[4] 250,001-1,000,00051
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00030
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction216 1 3 3 2 6 29 60 69 43 87.358
ILS Functionality218 2 3 2 4 11 26 61 69 40 87.258
Print Functionality213 1 2 2 6 14 50 76 62 87.728
Electronic Functionality212 9 1 5 8 13 20 34 59 35 28 76.307
Company Satisfaction213 1 8 3 9 22 29 53 51 37 76.847
Support Satisfaction212 1 1 3 2 14 18 37 41 47 48 96.967
Support Improvement205 7 3 8 7 26 62 17 37 18 20 55.565
Company Loyalty213 8 1 5 17 22 22 40 51 47 86.757
Open Source Interest215 92 30 28 15 20 15 6 5 2 2 01.821

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS219 177.76%
Considering new Interface219 2310.50%
System Installed on time?219 20593.61%

Average Collection size: 453385

TypeCount
Public180
Academic17
School4
Consortium15
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0009
[2] 10,001-100,00098
[3] 100,001-250,00042
[4] 250,001-1,000,00038
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00022
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction206 3 4 2 9 24 69 61 34 77.247
ILS Functionality207 1 2 4 1 13 22 50 82 32 87.308
Print Functionality207 3 1 1 3 1 10 8 36 94 50 87.578
Electronic Functionality206 3 3 4 15 7 31 35 52 33 23 76.237
Company Satisfaction206 1 2 3 7 7 29 34 43 54 26 86.677
Support Satisfaction204 2 3 5 13 25 27 30 56 43 86.907
Support Improvement195 7 3 11 18 20 58 13 27 18 20 55.335
Company Loyalty198 5 3 5 9 12 18 21 33 50 42 86.637
Open Source Interest204 82 27 27 16 17 15 9 4 1 6 02.041

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS215 177.91%
Considering new Interface215 2612.09%
System Installed on time?215 19791.63%

Average Collection size: 459670

TypeCount
Public184
Academic11
School0
Consortium18
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00097
[3] 100,001-250,00046
[4] 250,001-1,000,00043
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00025
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction169 1 1 1 8 19 43 59 37 87.518
ILS Functionality169 1 1 1 1 1 6 20 46 59 33 87.408
Print Functionality167 3 1 1 1 5 9 33 64 50 87.668
Electronic Functionality164 5 3 7 12 22 34 34 33 14 66.206
Company Satisfaction168 1 1 1 6 9 25 46 44 35 77.237
Support Satisfaction165 1 4 4 6 2 14 41 49 44 87.368
Support Improvement161 4 3 5 7 20 48 16 22 20 16 55.645
Company Loyalty167 6 1 2 9 9 20 29 43 48 97.118
Open Source Interest161 63 22 16 13 16 14 6 8 2 1 02.141

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS170 95.29%
Considering new Interface170 169.41%
System Installed on time?170 16496.47%

Average Collection size: 570334

TypeCount
Public143
Academic10
School0
Consortium14
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00063
[3] 100,001-250,00045
[4] 250,001-1,000,00033
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00020
[6] over 10,000,0011



2013 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction138 1 9 10 34 49 35 87.638
ILS Functionality138 3 6 12 36 51 30 87.548
Print Functionality136 2 2 2 8 7 19 52 44 87.658
Electronic Functionality136 3 3 3 6 8 19 22 22 36 14 86.287
Company Satisfaction136 1 1 11 7 27 46 43 87.708
Support Satisfaction137 3 2 11 9 30 41 41 87.548
Support Improvement135 1 1 4 2 32 15 22 27 31 56.837
Company Loyalty137 2 1 3 3 8 8 23 29 60 97.628
Open Source Interest134 60 18 20 8 5 13 3 5 2 01.781

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS143 10.70%
Considering new Interface143 1510.49%
System Installed on time?143 13292.31%

Average Collection size: 532870

TypeCount
Public118
Academic11
School1
Consortium11
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00057
[3] 100,001-250,00042
[4] 250,001-1,000,00018
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00016
[6] over 10,000,0011



2012 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction152 2 4 8 29 64 45 87.878
ILS Functionality152 1 1 4 8 54 51 33 77.628
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction151 2 2 1 6 9 17 60 54 87.838
Support Satisfaction152 1 3 2 5 11 44 44 42 77.528
Support Improvement144 2 3 8 50 19 17 16 29 56.376
Company Loyalty152 1 1 2 14 3 21 24 86 97.979
Open Source Interest149 50 19 23 22 12 10 8 3 1 1 02.112

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS161 21.24%
Considering new Interface161 63.73%
System Installed on time?161 15093.17%

Average Collection size: 411671

TypeCount
Public140
Academic8
School1
Consortium9
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00054
[3] 100,001-250,00043
[4] 250,001-1,000,00027
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00027
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction102 4 1 3 3 19 37 35 87.778
ILS Functionality102 1 4 8 20 46 23 87.718
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction100 1 2 3 2 4 15 36 37 97.808
Support Satisfaction100 2 2 4 2 6 22 29 33 97.558
Support Improvement97 3 1 2 2 6 23 10 12 18 20 56.377
Company Loyalty100 1 2 2 2 2 2 9 28 52 97.959
Open Source Interest99 46 12 20 8 2 6 3 1 1 01.481

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS106 21.89%
Considering new Interface106 87.55%
System Installed on time?106 10195.28%

Average Collection size: 541249

TypeCount
Public91
Academic3
School1
Consortium9
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00039
[3] 100,001-250,00022
[4] 250,001-1,000,00020
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00015
[6] over 10,000,0011



2010 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction101 1 3 2 1 3 17 42 32 87.778
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction100 2 2 6 3 14 32 41 97.838
Support Satisfaction101 1 4 1 4 3 18 30 40 97.748
Support Improvement100 1 1 2 3 17 11 6 33 26 87.118
Company Loyalty100 1 1 1 2 4 6 8 25 52 97.929
Open Source Interest100 41 13 17 6 6 5 5 4 1 2 01.981

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS104 65.77%
Considering new Interface104 109.62%
System Installed on time?104 9995.19%

Average Collection size: 356804

TypeCount
Public92
Academic6
School0
Consortium6
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00033
[3] 100,001-250,00020
[4] 250,001-1,000,00017
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0009
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction92 1 1 2 1 1 13 52 21 87.798
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction92 1 1 1 4 4 6 48 27 87.808
Support Satisfaction91 2 1 2 1 1 17 45 22 87.688
Support Improvement87 3 1 1 3 13 12 8 29 17 86.838
Company Loyalty91 3 1 1 1 5 2 5 37 36 87.688
Open Source Interest90 27 21 13 2 6 10 4 3 3 1 02.281

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS92 66.52%
Considering new Interface92 66.52%
System Installed on time?92 8592.39%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction51 2 3 4 5 21 16 87.738
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction51 4 3 2 5 15 22 97.768
Support Satisfaction51 1 4 4 3 8 11 20 97.418
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty52 3 1 1 2 1 2 3 14 25 97.338
Open Source Interest51 15 13 6 3 2 7 1 1 3 02.291

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS53 59.43%
Considering new Interface53 35.66%
System Installed on time?53 4890.57%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction59 1 1 1 5 12 18 21 97.788
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction64 1 1 3 2 11 20 26 97.898
Support Satisfaction64 1 3 2 8 17 33 98.119
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty63 2 2 2 3 5 7 18 24 97.498
Open Source Interest62 20 11 11 3 5 4 2 3 1 2 02.272

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS64 11.56%
Considering new Interface64 23.13%
System Installed on time?64 11.56%




2020 : gen: 7.46 company 7.10 loyalty 7.10 support 7.30

2019 : gen: 7.41 company 6.75 loyalty 6.45 support 6.94

2018 : gen: 7.39 company 6.59 loyalty 6.52 support 6.94

2017 : gen: 7.25 company 6.71 loyalty 6.60 support 6.90

2016 : gen: 7.35 company 6.84 loyalty 6.75 support 6.96

2015 : gen: 7.24 company 6.67 loyalty 6.63 support 6.90

2014 : gen: 7.51 company 7.23 loyalty 7.11 support 7.36

2013 : gen: 7.63 company 7.70 loyalty 7.62 support 7.54

2012 : gen: 7.87 company 7.83 loyalty 7.97 support 7.52

2011 : gen: 7.77 company 7.80 loyalty 7.95 support 7.55

2010 : gen: 7.77 company 7.83 loyalty 7.92 support 7.74

2009 : gen: 7.79 company 7.80 loyalty 7.68 support 7.68

2008 : gen: 7.73 company 7.76 loyalty 7.33 support 7.41

2007 : gen: 7.78 company 7.89 loyalty 7.49 support 8.11

Comments (survey2020)

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)

ILS