Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Symphony

Statistics according to type and size categories

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

2020 Symphony Responses by Sector
SymphonyallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS3216.98 426.10247.08106.301127.04527.35167.4487.50247.29
ILSFunctionality3227.05 416.39247.04105.901147.17527.31167.1987.88247.33
PrintFunctionality3187.49 417.12247.79107.301117.33527.69157.7388.13247.67
ElectronicFunctionality3085.90 404.17235.5794.561056.46506.34166.5687.00245.42
SatisfactionCustomerSupport3147.61 416.90248.0497.781077.50527.96167.6987.88247.92
CompanyLoyalty3167.00 426.29246.92106.101117.06497.24167.2587.63247.58



2020 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction321 2 2 7 5 10 22 35 98 96 44 76.987
ILS Functionality322 1 2 13 7 18 48 82 112 39 87.057
Print Functionality318 1 3 5 7 13 28 69 112 80 87.498
Electronic Functionality308 8 9 12 21 17 44 51 72 44 30 75.906
Company Satisfaction317 2 7 6 12 16 30 83 100 61 87.178
Support Satisfaction314 1 5 6 5 14 22 51 107 103 87.618
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty316 8 4 7 10 8 24 22 70 77 86 97.008
Open Source Interest285 85 22 39 22 14 31 16 16 18 16 03.272

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS331 5717.22%
Considering new Interface331 164.83%
System Installed on time?331 00.00%

Average Collection size: 860340

TypeCount
Public193
Academic80
School9
Consortium24
Special6

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0008
[2] 10,001-100,000108
[3] 100,001-250,00070
[4] 250,001-1,000,00073
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00042
[6] over 10,000,0015



2019 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction439 5 11 8 9 16 33 67 115 122 53 86.707
ILS Functionality436 4 10 3 11 21 27 69 118 126 47 86.747
Print Functionality433 5 6 3 9 17 23 43 92 163 72 87.108
Electronic Functionality426 18 17 22 16 40 48 59 95 74 37 75.766
Company Satisfaction434 7 10 5 14 21 27 54 97 131 68 86.787
Support Satisfaction423 5 3 7 9 16 30 36 71 130 116 87.228
Support Improvement422 6 5 3 8 43 108 56 58 64 71 56.266
Company Loyalty429 23 13 10 16 22 32 42 72 97 102 96.487
Open Source Interest429 132 46 48 28 56 40 23 18 20 18 02.882

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS443 7516.93%
Considering new Interface443 5111.51%
System Installed on time?443 40491.20%

Average Collection size: 674873

TypeCount
Public258
Academic112
School12
Consortium28
Special6

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00019
[2] 10,001-100,000148
[3] 100,001-250,00084
[4] 250,001-1,000,000100
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00060
[6] over 10,000,0014



2018 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction473 5 4 5 15 18 34 65 157 118 52 76.777
ILS Functionality471 3 5 7 16 16 46 76 125 122 55 76.727
Print Functionality471 8 4 8 6 10 28 51 104 162 90 87.138
Electronic Functionality460 22 16 25 23 38 50 79 108 58 41 75.656
Company Satisfaction468 4 6 11 15 18 33 56 137 120 68 76.797
Support Satisfaction462 2 7 13 8 19 34 39 103 122 115 87.088
Support Improvement448 9 1 11 14 37 137 49 52 66 72 56.106
Company Loyalty459 18 9 20 17 27 41 47 95 88 97 96.407
Open Source Interest460 158 56 58 23 43 43 31 24 5 19 02.592

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS481 8918.50%
Considering new Interface481 459.36%
System Installed on time?481 43590.44%

Average Collection size: 552666

TypeCount
Public283
Academic122
School13
Consortium25
Special8

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00014
[2] 10,001-100,000173
[3] 100,001-250,000104
[4] 250,001-1,000,000108
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00053
[6] over 10,000,0012



2017 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction531 5 5 13 14 23 39 89 154 122 67 76.697
ILS Functionality531 1 7 15 13 24 45 92 150 130 54 76.647
Print Functionality523 4 3 12 8 15 30 54 124 177 96 87.148
Electronic Functionality525 14 21 34 30 41 76 87 109 78 35 75.616
Company Satisfaction523 4 8 10 13 24 54 73 116 133 88 86.777
Support Satisfaction518 3 7 6 16 17 38 53 100 160 118 87.118
Support Improvement512 5 1 9 8 45 137 61 83 89 74 56.316
Company Loyalty516 31 5 23 13 25 51 56 107 103 102 76.347
Open Source Interest517 160 69 65 33 68 51 27 21 7 16 02.582

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS536 10719.96%
Considering new Interface536 519.51%
System Installed on time?536 48690.67%

Average Collection size: 633322

TypeCount
Public301
Academic141
School16
Consortium32
Special9

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00023
[2] 10,001-100,000179
[3] 100,001-250,000116
[4] 250,001-1,000,000122
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00066
[6] over 10,000,0013



2016 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction431 3 4 10 12 17 31 58 126 117 53 76.797
ILS Functionality431 2 2 9 13 21 31 54 132 111 56 76.827
Print Functionality426 6 1 4 8 11 17 31 104 153 91 87.328
Electronic Functionality422 16 12 24 22 38 45 78 80 73 34 75.746
Company Satisfaction427 6 4 11 10 21 32 49 110 111 73 86.817
Support Satisfaction418 4 4 5 10 17 29 44 91 111 103 87.118
Support Improvement410 5 4 5 8 44 101 53 50 67 73 56.296
Company Loyalty425 17 11 7 11 16 46 41 84 90 102 96.647
Open Source Interest418 140 57 54 32 46 38 20 11 6 14 02.412

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS436 8118.58%
Considering new Interface436 4911.24%
System Installed on time?436 40292.20%

Average Collection size: 2753248

TypeCount
Public235
Academic132
School14
Consortium25
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00016
[2] 10,001-100,000151
[3] 100,001-250,00091
[4] 250,001-1,000,00096
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00059
[6] over 10,000,0015



2015 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction437 5 6 12 8 20 37 58 131 113 47 76.667
ILS Functionality436 8 15 12 18 41 54 132 116 40 76.627
Print Functionality437 4 5 4 5 17 22 36 123 144 77 87.168
Electronic Functionality432 12 20 23 27 35 62 61 89 69 34 75.666
Company Satisfaction432 5 9 13 15 18 30 51 109 119 63 86.697
Support Satisfaction427 5 4 14 12 15 33 36 101 123 84 86.927
Support Improvement420 8 7 3 5 46 108 42 71 69 61 56.206
Company Loyalty433 23 14 10 9 23 44 49 84 97 80 86.357
Open Source Interest426 153 61 59 27 40 37 15 15 5 14 02.271

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS460 8217.83%
Considering new Interface460 4710.22%
System Installed on time?460 40287.39%

Average Collection size: 653631

TypeCount
Public256
Academic116
School22
Consortium27
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00021
[2] 10,001-100,000168
[3] 100,001-250,00091
[4] 250,001-1,000,00098
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00051
[6] over 10,000,0011



2014 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction354 1 4 9 16 14 29 55 124 76 26 76.537
ILS Functionality355 1 2 11 13 16 29 66 104 85 28 76.567
Print Functionality351 3 2 4 4 11 13 43 81 125 65 87.248
Electronic Functionality347 10 19 28 34 17 45 63 72 41 18 75.316
Company Satisfaction352 9 12 17 19 26 57 98 80 34 76.437
Support Satisfaction348 2 4 7 11 13 29 50 86 89 57 86.827
Support Improvement339 2 3 2 9 38 96 29 49 53 58 56.286
Company Loyalty343 13 12 13 17 22 38 43 56 68 61 86.157
Open Source Interest346 108 61 49 26 31 25 18 6 8 14 02.392

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS361 7621.05%
Considering new Interface361 5214.40%
System Installed on time?361 32289.20%

Average Collection size: 707313

TypeCount
Public182
Academic111
School7
Consortium19
Special6

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00014
[2] 10,001-100,000118
[3] 100,001-250,00081
[4] 250,001-1,000,00075
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00049
[6] over 10,000,0012



2013 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction315 3 3 8 14 18 23 36 99 74 37 76.617
ILS Functionality314 2 2 7 20 10 20 52 88 72 41 76.657
Print Functionality314 3 1 3 4 9 20 35 76 99 64 87.218
Electronic Functionality307 7 17 21 29 24 46 52 50 36 25 65.366
Company Satisfaction313 4 9 10 16 14 17 43 81 77 42 76.517
Support Satisfaction312 4 3 6 8 16 26 28 77 79 65 86.917
Support Improvement307 4 2 7 5 17 83 23 57 50 59 56.467
Company Loyalty312 21 8 10 9 17 41 26 56 61 63 96.197
Open Source Interest304 90 34 49 22 27 40 13 13 7 9 02.672

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS324 6620.37%
Considering new Interface324 5817.90%
System Installed on time?324 29290.12%

Average Collection size: 835498

TypeCount
Public139
Academic87
School29
Consortium26
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00024
[2] 10,001-100,00080
[3] 100,001-250,00064
[4] 250,001-1,000,00067
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00041
[6] over 10,000,0012



2012 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction380 2 2 10 19 25 48 50 122 72 30 76.377
ILS Functionality380 1 1 5 24 24 41 47 114 94 29 76.527
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction378 1 6 14 26 22 43 65 98 71 32 76.217
Support Satisfaction378 1 5 11 14 35 44 36 102 80 50 76.487
Support Improvement371 3 3 6 16 26 99 45 55 69 49 56.236
Company Loyalty376 30 11 22 18 25 48 33 76 54 59 75.707
Open Source Interest374 97 44 47 35 35 42 28 19 13 14 03.012

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS393 7920.10%
Considering new Interface393 7619.34%
System Installed on time?393 34888.55%

Average Collection size: 644460

TypeCount
Public206
Academic114
School4
Consortium21
Special9

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00017
[2] 10,001-100,000125
[3] 100,001-250,00093
[4] 250,001-1,000,00080
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00054
[6] over 10,000,0012



2011 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction326 5 6 9 11 21 37 61 102 57 17 76.187
ILS Functionality320 1 2 7 18 18 30 63 93 69 19 76.397
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction326 6 7 19 20 24 35 58 83 53 21 75.886
Support Satisfaction324 4 10 11 14 18 44 54 72 68 29 76.177
Support Improvement323 5 10 10 12 28 81 37 60 48 32 55.876
Company Loyalty323 23 16 16 13 31 44 40 54 55 31 85.476
Open Source Interest318 63 32 48 21 34 45 18 27 12 18 03.483

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS333 7622.82%
Considering new Interface333 8826.43%
System Installed on time?333 30390.99%

Average Collection size: 570393

TypeCount
Public151
Academic116
School4
Consortium15
Special10

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00010
[2] 10,001-100,00098
[3] 100,001-250,00077
[4] 250,001-1,000,00084
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00040
[6] over 10,000,0011



2010 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction271 3 5 9 12 19 37 41 77 50 18 76.157
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction271 8 8 17 11 26 37 54 57 39 14 75.636
Support Satisfaction269 8 7 15 20 23 32 50 56 39 19 75.676
Support Improvement271 11 7 16 28 21 87 26 26 26 23 55.155
Company Loyalty270 18 15 10 24 29 34 40 40 32 28 65.266
Open Source Interest269 64 26 30 17 19 31 29 19 14 20 03.593

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS282 5720.21%
Considering new Interface282 8128.72%
System Installed on time?282 24285.82%

Average Collection size: 580366

TypeCount
Public142
Academic88
School4
Consortium15
Special10

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00085
[3] 100,001-250,00051
[4] 250,001-1,000,00054
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00028
[6] over 10,000,0011



2009 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction304 3 5 6 9 16 62 56 96 44 7 76.066
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction303 5 9 27 23 22 56 48 79 29 5 75.346
Support Satisfaction303 3 12 30 23 17 54 45 66 41 12 75.446
Support Improvement292 7 11 19 29 23 89 35 39 30 10 55.095
Company Loyalty301 32 14 12 14 23 67 31 49 43 16 55.065
Open Source Interest300 53 34 26 25 30 40 25 20 23 24 03.904

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS310 4915.81%
Considering new Interface310 8527.42%
System Installed on time?310 26184.19%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction233 4 7 11 19 16 35 37 64 32 8 75.686
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction234 9 9 16 31 28 23 43 43 26 6 65.056
Support Satisfaction233 12 14 23 18 21 36 39 38 23 9 64.915
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty233 21 13 19 18 17 36 20 43 34 12 74.955
Open Source Interest231 36 23 21 24 17 37 12 23 16 22 54.114

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS234 5423.08%
Considering new Interface234 6929.49%
System Installed on time?234 21491.45%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction200 4 1 5 10 6 23 29 64 43 15 76.417
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction284 5 8 20 23 27 43 47 61 38 12 75.506
Support Satisfaction282 6 10 13 27 37 33 42 64 34 16 75.486
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty279 25 10 12 9 16 59 31 42 36 39 55.526
Open Source Interest281 54 41 36 32 17 36 21 14 9 21 03.353

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS288 4214.58%
Considering new Interface288 6020.83%
System Installed on time?288 10.35%




2020 : gen: 6.98 company 7.17 loyalty 7.00 support 7.61

2019 : gen: 6.70 company 6.78 loyalty 6.48 support 7.22

2018 : gen: 6.77 company 6.79 loyalty 6.40 support 7.08

2017 : gen: 6.69 company 6.77 loyalty 6.34 support 7.11

2016 : gen: 6.79 company 6.81 loyalty 6.64 support 7.11

2015 : gen: 6.66 company 6.69 loyalty 6.35 support 6.92

2014 : gen: 6.53 company 6.43 loyalty 6.15 support 6.82

2013 : gen: 6.61 company 6.51 loyalty 6.19 support 6.91

2012 : gen: 6.37 company 6.21 loyalty 5.70 support 6.48

2011 : gen: 6.18 company 5.88 loyalty 5.47 support 6.17

2010 : gen: 6.15 company 5.63 loyalty 5.26 support 5.67

2009 : gen: 6.06 company 5.34 loyalty 5.06 support 5.44

2008 : gen: 5.68 company 5.05 loyalty 4.95 support 4.91

2007 : gen: 6.41 company 5.50 loyalty 5.52 support 5.48

Comments (survey2020)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ILS