Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Polaris

2021 Survey Results
Product: Polaris		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	110						4	11	28	41	26	8	7.67	8
ILS Functionality	110			1			1	10	29	44	25	8	7.70	8
Print Functionality	107			1	1		3	3	22	40	37	8	7.90	8
Electronic Functionality	106	3	1	4	6	8	8	17	27	17	15	7	6.24	7
Company Satisfaction	108				1	5	7	14	26	33	22	8	7.28	8
Support Satisfaction	105					4	7	13	22	31	28	8	7.46	8
Support Improvement	0											0	0.00
Company Loyalty	110			2	1	5	8	10	24	28	32	9	7.34	8
Open Source Interest	94	31	14	7	5	4	9	10	5	3	2	0	2.99	10

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	115	6	5.22%
Considering new Interface	115	0	0.00%
System Installed on time?	115	0	0.00%

Average Collection size:		393846

Type	Count
Public	0
Academic	0
School	0
Consortium	0
Special	0

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	1
[2] 10,001-100,000	56
[3] 100,001-250,000	28
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	14
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	11
[6] over 10,000,001	0

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
Polaris	all		Academic						Public						School		Consortium
			small		medium		large		small		medium		large
	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg
SatisfactionLevelILS	158	7.46	5		1		0		77	7.27	40	7.63	16	7.50	1		12	7.67
ILSFunctionality	157	7.34	5		1		0		76	7.28	40	7.40	16	7.00	1		12	7.33
PrintFunctionality	158	7.84	5		1		0		77	7.69	40	8.00	16	8.06	1		12	7.75
ElectronicFunctionality	155	6.21	5		1		0		76	6.29	40	6.30	15	5.20	0		12	6.25
SatisfactionCustomerSupport	148	7.31	4		1		0		70	7.19	39	7.33	16	7.81	0		12	7.50
CompanyLoyalty	154	7.10	5		1		0		77	7.01	36	7.31	16	7.75	1		12	7.42

2020 Survey Results
Product: Polaris		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	158	1		1	2	2	5	13	41	64	29	8	7.46	8
ILS Functionality	157	1	1	1	1	3	7	16	45	50	32	8	7.34	8
Print Functionality	158	1		1		1	2	10	29	67	47	8	7.84	8
Electronic Functionality	155	5	2	3	3	8	18	40	37	26	13	6	6.21	6
Company Satisfaction	154	1		2	1	1	15	26	35	49	24	8	7.11	7
Support Satisfaction	148	1		2	2	3	15	13	31	40	40	8	7.31	8
Support Improvement	0											0	0.00
Company Loyalty	154	5		2	1	3	12	16	37	42	36	8	7.10	8
Open Source Interest	137	46	17	14	9	5	19	10	8	6	3	0	2.76	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	164	12	7.32%
Considering new Interface	164	0	0.00%
System Installed on time?	164	0	0.00%

Average Collection size:		630672

Type	Count
Public	142
Academic	6
School	1
Consortium	12
Special	0

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	3
[2] 10,001-100,000	55
[3] 100,001-250,000	35
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	38
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	22
[6] over 10,000,001	2

2019 Survey Results
Product: Polaris		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	220				5	5	10	25	51	77	47	8	7.41	8
ILS Functionality	219				6	4	7	31	58	70	43	8	7.34	8
Print Functionality	215	1	1	1	1	2	5	17	39	82	66	8	7.74	8
Electronic Functionality	218	6	2	6	15	18	28	22	54	34	33	7	6.19	7
Company Satisfaction	216	2	3	4	5	10	28	23	52	51	38	7	6.75	7
Support Satisfaction	214	1	2	4	10	7	22	28	33	54	53	8	6.94	8
Support Improvement	212	2	1	8	7	19	72	26	18	28	31	5	5.94	5
Company Loyalty	210	7	6	6	5	11	24	23	43	47	38	8	6.45	7
Open Source Interest	208	62	28	24	17	20	30	9	4	4	10	0	2.70	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	227	19	8.37%
Considering new Interface	227	16	7.05%
System Installed on time?	227	203	89.43%

Average Collection size:		491957

Type	Count
Public	198
Academic	9
School	1
Consortium	14
Special	1

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	21
[2] 10,001-100,000	86
[3] 100,001-250,000	42
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	44
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	18
[6] over 10,000,001	1

2018 Survey Results
Product: Polaris		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	258	1	2	1	4	3	11	20	77	86	53	8	7.39	8
ILS Functionality	256		2	1	4	3	11	22	69	99	45	8	7.40	8
Print Functionality	252	4			1	4	6	12	46	121	58	8	7.67	8
Electronic Functionality	253	8	4	4	6	12	29	45	59	52	34	7	6.43	7
Company Satisfaction	252	5	4	3	13	8	28	35	57	61	38	8	6.59	7
Support Satisfaction	251	1	5	3	7	15	19	28	54	62	57	8	6.94	7
Support Improvement	247	8	3	9	6	26	79	30	27	30	29	5	5.70	5
Company Loyalty	247	10	2	7	9	11	34	19	49	57	49	8	6.52	7
Open Source Interest	248	69	31	36	22	29	32	12	6	4	7	0	2.64	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	270	22	8.15%
Considering new Interface	270	26	9.63%
System Installed on time?	270	248	91.85%

Average Collection size:		427048

Type	Count
Public	243
Academic	9
School	0
Consortium	17
Special	0

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	20
[2] 10,001-100,000	99
[3] 100,001-250,000	50
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	58
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	22
[6] over 10,000,001	0

2017 Survey Results
Product: Polaris		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	263	1		4	1	7	14	31	73	87	45	8	7.25	8
ILS Functionality	261			2	6	4	9	21	85	93	41	8	7.34	8
Print Functionality	263	1	1	2	2	3	9	14	50	104	77	8	7.71	8
Electronic Functionality	257	4	2	14	6	15	24	43	57	59	33	8	6.44	7
Company Satisfaction	259	3	2	4	5	14	34	32	63	63	39	7	6.71	7
Support Satisfaction	248	2	3	4	8	11	15	30	69	61	45	7	6.90	7
Support Improvement	244	11	2	6	12	24	69	23	35	29	33	5	5.75	5
Company Loyalty	255	9	5	3	7	20	23	29	47	54	58	9	6.60	7
Open Source Interest	256	90	28	38	23	26	22	12	7	4	6	0	2.32	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	267	20	7.49%
Considering new Interface	267	30	11.24%
System Installed on time?	267	247	92.51%

Average Collection size:		418065

Type	Count
Public	228
Academic	11
School	3
Consortium	21
Special	2

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	11
[2] 10,001-100,000	119
[3] 100,001-250,000	51
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	51
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	30
[6] over 10,000,001	0

2016 Survey Results
Product: Polaris		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	216		1	3	3	2	6	29	60	69	43	8	7.35	8
ILS Functionality	218		2	3	2	4	11	26	61	69	40	8	7.25	8
Print Functionality	213		1		2	2	6	14	50	76	62	8	7.72	8
Electronic Functionality	212	9	1	5	8	13	20	34	59	35	28	7	6.30	7
Company Satisfaction	213	1		8	3	9	22	29	53	51	37	7	6.84	7
Support Satisfaction	212	1	1	3	2	14	18	37	41	47	48	9	6.96	7
Support Improvement	205	7	3	8	7	26	62	17	37	18	20	5	5.56	5
Company Loyalty	213	8	1		5	17	22	22	40	51	47	8	6.75	7
Open Source Interest	215	92	30	28	15	20	15	6	5	2	2	0	1.82	1

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	219	17	7.76%
Considering new Interface	219	23	10.50%
System Installed on time?	219	205	93.61%

Average Collection size:		453385

Type	Count
Public	180
Academic	17
School	4
Consortium	15
Special	2

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	9
[2] 10,001-100,000	98
[3] 100,001-250,000	42
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	38
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	22
[6] over 10,000,001	0

2015 Survey Results
Product: Polaris		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	206			3	4	2	9	24	69	61	34	7	7.24	7
ILS Functionality	207	1		2	4	1	13	22	50	82	32	8	7.30	8
Print Functionality	207	3	1	1	3	1	10	8	36	94	50	8	7.57	8
Electronic Functionality	206	3	3	4	15	7	31	35	52	33	23	7	6.23	7
Company Satisfaction	206	1	2	3	7	7	29	34	43	54	26	8	6.67	7
Support Satisfaction	204		2	3	5	13	25	27	30	56	43	8	6.90	7
Support Improvement	195	7	3	11	18	20	58	13	27	18	20	5	5.33	5
Company Loyalty	198	5	3	5	9	12	18	21	33	50	42	8	6.63	7
Open Source Interest	204	82	27	27	16	17	15	9	4	1	6	0	2.04	1

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	215	17	7.91%
Considering new Interface	215	26	12.09%
System Installed on time?	215	197	91.63%

Average Collection size:		459670

Type	Count
Public	184
Academic	11
School	0
Consortium	18
Special	0

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	4
[2] 10,001-100,000	97
[3] 100,001-250,000	46
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	43
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	25
[6] over 10,000,001	0

2014 Survey Results
Product: Polaris		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	169			1	1	1	8	19	43	59	37	8	7.51	8
ILS Functionality	169	1	1	1	1	1	6	20	46	59	33	8	7.40	8
Print Functionality	167	3	1	1		1	5	9	33	64	50	8	7.66	8
Electronic Functionality	164	5		3	7	12	22	34	34	33	14	6	6.20	6
Company Satisfaction	168		1	1	1	6	9	25	46	44	35	7	7.23	7
Support Satisfaction	165		1	4	4	6	2	14	41	49	44	8	7.36	8
Support Improvement	161	4	3	5	7	20	48	16	22	20	16	5	5.64	5
Company Loyalty	167	6		1	2	9	9	20	29	43	48	9	7.11	8
Open Source Interest	161	63	22	16	13	16	14	6	8	2	1	0	2.14	1

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	170	9	5.29%
Considering new Interface	170	16	9.41%
System Installed on time?	170	164	96.47%

Average Collection size:		570334

Type	Count
Public	143
Academic	10
School	0
Consortium	14
Special	1

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	6
[2] 10,001-100,000	63
[3] 100,001-250,000	45
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	33
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	20
[6] over 10,000,001	1

2013 Survey Results
Product: Polaris		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	138				1		9	10	34	49	35	8	7.63	8
ILS Functionality	138				3		6	12	36	51	30	8	7.54	8
Print Functionality	136	2			2	2	8	7	19	52	44	8	7.65	8
Electronic Functionality	136	3	3	3	6	8	19	22	22	36	14	8	6.28	7
Company Satisfaction	136			1		1	11	7	27	46	43	8	7.70	8
Support Satisfaction	137				3	2	11	9	30	41	41	8	7.54	8
Support Improvement	135		1	1	4	2	32	15	22	27	31	5	6.83	7
Company Loyalty	137	2		1	3	3	8	8	23	29	60	9	7.62	8
Open Source Interest	134	60	18	20	8	5	13	3	5		2	0	1.78	1

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	143	1	0.70%
Considering new Interface	143	15	10.49%
System Installed on time?	143	132	92.31%

Average Collection size:		532870

Type	Count
Public	118
Academic	11
School	1
Consortium	11
Special	1

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	2
[2] 10,001-100,000	57
[3] 100,001-250,000	42
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	18
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	16
[6] over 10,000,001	1

2012 Survey Results
Product: Polaris		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	152					2	4	8	29	64	45	8	7.87	8
ILS Functionality	152				1	1	4	8	54	51	33	7	7.62	8
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	151			2	2	1	6	9	17	60	54	8	7.83	8
Support Satisfaction	152	1		3		2	5	11	44	44	42	7	7.52	8
Support Improvement	144			2	3	8	50	19	17	16	29	5	6.37	6
Company Loyalty	152	1		1		2	14	3	21	24	86	9	7.97	9
Open Source Interest	149	50	19	23	22	12	10	8	3	1	1	0	2.11	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	161	2	1.24%
Considering new Interface	161	6	3.73%
System Installed on time?	161	150	93.17%

Average Collection size:		411671

Type	Count
Public	140
Academic	8
School	1
Consortium	9
Special	2

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	2
[2] 10,001-100,000	54
[3] 100,001-250,000	43
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	27
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	27
[6] over 10,000,001	0

2011 Survey Results
Product: Polaris		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	102				4	1	3	3	19	37	35	8	7.77	8
ILS Functionality	102				1		4	8	20	46	23	8	7.71	8
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	100			1	2	3	2	4	15	36	37	9	7.80	8
Support Satisfaction	100			2	2	4	2	6	22	29	33	9	7.55	8
Support Improvement	97	3	1	2	2	6	23	10	12	18	20	5	6.37	7
Company Loyalty	100	1		2	2	2	2	2	9	28	52	9	7.95	9
Open Source Interest	99	46	12	20	8	2	6	3	1	1		0	1.48	1

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	106	2	1.89%
Considering new Interface	106	8	7.55%
System Installed on time?	106	101	95.28%

Average Collection size:		541249

Type	Count
Public	91
Academic	3
School	1
Consortium	9
Special	1

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	4
[2] 10,001-100,000	39
[3] 100,001-250,000	22
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	20
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	15
[6] over 10,000,001	1

2010 Survey Results
Product: Polaris		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	101			1	3	2	1	3	17	42	32	8	7.77	8
ILS Functionality	0											0	0.00
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	100			2		2	6	3	14	32	41	9	7.83	8
Support Satisfaction	101			1	4	1	4	3	18	30	40	9	7.74	8
Support Improvement	100	1		1	2	3	17	11	6	33	26	8	7.11	8
Company Loyalty	100	1	1		1	2	4	6	8	25	52	9	7.92	9
Open Source Interest	100	41	13	17	6	6	5	5	4	1	2	0	1.98	1

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	104	6	5.77%
Considering new Interface	104	10	9.62%
System Installed on time?	104	99	95.19%

Average Collection size:		356804

Type	Count
Public	92
Academic	6
School	0
Consortium	6
Special	0

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	2
[2] 10,001-100,000	33
[3] 100,001-250,000	20
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	17
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	9
[6] over 10,000,001	0

2009 Survey Results
Product: Polaris		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	92	1		1		2	1	1	13	52	21	8	7.79	8
ILS Functionality	0											0	0.00
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	92	1		1	1		4	4	6	48	27	8	7.80	8
Support Satisfaction	91	2			1	2	1	1	17	45	22	8	7.68	8
Support Improvement	87	3	1		1	3	13	12	8	29	17	8	6.83	8
Company Loyalty	91	3	1	1		1	5	2	5	37	36	8	7.68	8
Open Source Interest	90	27	21	13	2	6	10	4	3	3	1	0	2.28	1

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	92	6	6.52%
Considering new Interface	92	6	6.52%
System Installed on time?	92	85	92.39%

2008 Survey Results
Product: Polaris		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	51					2	3	4	5	21	16	8	7.73	8
ILS Functionality	0											0	0.00
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	51					4	3	2	5	15	22	9	7.76	8
Support Satisfaction	51	1				4	4	3	8	11	20	9	7.41	8
Support Improvement	0	not applicable
Company Loyalty	52	3	1	1	2	1	2		3	14	25	9	7.33	8
Open Source Interest	51	15	13	6	3	2	7	1	1		3	0	2.29	1

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	53	5	9.43%
Considering new Interface	53	3	5.66%
System Installed on time?	53	48	90.57%

2007 Survey Results
Product: Polaris		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	59				1	1	1	5	12	18	21	9	7.78	8
ILS Functionality	0											0	0.00
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	64				1	1	3	2	11	20	26	9	7.89	8
Support Satisfaction	64				1		3	2	8	17	33	9	8.11	9
Support Improvement	0	not applicable
Company Loyalty	63			2	2	2	3	5	7	18	24	9	7.49	8
Open Source Interest	62	20	11	11	3	5	4	2	3	1	2	0	2.27	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	64	1	1.56%
Considering new Interface	64	2	3.13%
System Installed on time?	64	1	1.56%

2021 : gen: 7.67 company 7.28 loyalty 7.34 support 7.46

2020 : gen: 7.46 company 7.11 loyalty 7.10 support 7.31

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

Library Technology Guides is a service provided by Marshall Breeding, independent consultant, author, and speaker.