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
Symphony	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	321	6.98	42	6.10	24	7.08	10	6.30	112	7.04	52	7.35	16	7.44	8	7.50	24	7.29
ILSFunctionality	322	7.05	41	6.39	24	7.04	10	5.90	114	7.17	52	7.31	16	7.19	8	7.88	24	7.33
PrintFunctionality	318	7.49	41	7.12	24	7.79	10	7.30	111	7.33	52	7.69	15	7.73	8	8.13	24	7.67
ElectronicFunctionality	308	5.90	40	4.17	23	5.57	9	4.56	105	6.46	50	6.34	16	6.56	8	7.00	24	5.42
SatisfactionCustomerSupport	314	7.61	41	6.90	24	8.04	9	7.78	107	7.50	52	7.96	16	7.69	8	7.88	24	7.92
CompanyLoyalty	316	7.00	42	6.29	24	6.92	10	6.10	111	7.06	49	7.24	16	7.25	8	7.63	24	7.58

2020 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	321	2	2	7	5	10	22	35	98	96	44	7	6.98	7
ILS Functionality	322		1	2	13	7	18	48	82	112	39	8	7.05	7
Print Functionality	318	1		3	5	7	13	28	69	112	80	8	7.49	8
Electronic Functionality	308	8	9	12	21	17	44	51	72	44	30	7	5.90	6
Company Satisfaction	317		2	7	6	12	16	30	83	100	61	8	7.17	8
Support Satisfaction	314		1	5	6	5	14	22	51	107	103	8	7.61	8
Support Improvement	0											0	0.00
Company Loyalty	316	8	4	7	10	8	24	22	70	77	86	9	7.00	8
Open Source Interest	285	85	22	39	22	14	31	16	16	18	16	0	3.27	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	331	57	17.22%
Considering new Interface	331	16	4.83%
System Installed on time?	331	0	0.00%

Average Collection size:		860340

Type	Count
Public	193
Academic	80
School	9
Consortium	24
Special	6

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	8
[2] 10,001-100,000	108
[3] 100,001-250,000	70
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	73
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	42
[6] over 10,000,001	5

2019 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	439	5	11	8	9	16	33	67	115	122	53	8	6.70	7
ILS Functionality	436	4	10	3	11	21	27	69	118	126	47	8	6.74	7
Print Functionality	433	5	6	3	9	17	23	43	92	163	72	8	7.10	8
Electronic Functionality	426	18	17	22	16	40	48	59	95	74	37	7	5.76	6
Company Satisfaction	434	7	10	5	14	21	27	54	97	131	68	8	6.78	7
Support Satisfaction	423	5	3	7	9	16	30	36	71	130	116	8	7.22	8
Support Improvement	422	6	5	3	8	43	108	56	58	64	71	5	6.26	6
Company Loyalty	429	23	13	10	16	22	32	42	72	97	102	9	6.48	7
Open Source Interest	429	132	46	48	28	56	40	23	18	20	18	0	2.88	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	443	75	16.93%
Considering new Interface	443	51	11.51%
System Installed on time?	443	404	91.20%

Average Collection size:		674873

Type	Count
Public	258
Academic	112
School	12
Consortium	28
Special	6

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	19
[2] 10,001-100,000	148
[3] 100,001-250,000	84
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	100
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	60
[6] over 10,000,001	4

2018 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	473	5	4	5	15	18	34	65	157	118	52	7	6.77	7
ILS Functionality	471	3	5	7	16	16	46	76	125	122	55	7	6.72	7
Print Functionality	471	8	4	8	6	10	28	51	104	162	90	8	7.13	8
Electronic Functionality	460	22	16	25	23	38	50	79	108	58	41	7	5.65	6
Company Satisfaction	468	4	6	11	15	18	33	56	137	120	68	7	6.79	7
Support Satisfaction	462	2	7	13	8	19	34	39	103	122	115	8	7.08	8
Support Improvement	448	9	1	11	14	37	137	49	52	66	72	5	6.10	6
Company Loyalty	459	18	9	20	17	27	41	47	95	88	97	9	6.40	7
Open Source Interest	460	158	56	58	23	43	43	31	24	5	19	0	2.59	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	481	89	18.50%
Considering new Interface	481	45	9.36%
System Installed on time?	481	435	90.44%

Average Collection size:		552666

Type	Count
Public	283
Academic	122
School	13
Consortium	25
Special	8

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	14
[2] 10,001-100,000	173
[3] 100,001-250,000	104
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	108
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	53
[6] over 10,000,001	2

2017 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	531	5	5	13	14	23	39	89	154	122	67	7	6.69	7
ILS Functionality	531	1	7	15	13	24	45	92	150	130	54	7	6.64	7
Print Functionality	523	4	3	12	8	15	30	54	124	177	96	8	7.14	8
Electronic Functionality	525	14	21	34	30	41	76	87	109	78	35	7	5.61	6
Company Satisfaction	523	4	8	10	13	24	54	73	116	133	88	8	6.77	7
Support Satisfaction	518	3	7	6	16	17	38	53	100	160	118	8	7.11	8
Support Improvement	512	5	1	9	8	45	137	61	83	89	74	5	6.31	6
Company Loyalty	516	31	5	23	13	25	51	56	107	103	102	7	6.34	7
Open Source Interest	517	160	69	65	33	68	51	27	21	7	16	0	2.58	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	536	107	19.96%
Considering new Interface	536	51	9.51%
System Installed on time?	536	486	90.67%

Average Collection size:		633322

Type	Count
Public	301
Academic	141
School	16
Consortium	32
Special	9

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	23
[2] 10,001-100,000	179
[3] 100,001-250,000	116
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	122
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	66
[6] over 10,000,001	3

2016 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	431	3	4	10	12	17	31	58	126	117	53	7	6.79	7
ILS Functionality	431	2	2	9	13	21	31	54	132	111	56	7	6.82	7
Print Functionality	426	6	1	4	8	11	17	31	104	153	91	8	7.32	8
Electronic Functionality	422	16	12	24	22	38	45	78	80	73	34	7	5.74	6
Company Satisfaction	427	6	4	11	10	21	32	49	110	111	73	8	6.81	7
Support Satisfaction	418	4	4	5	10	17	29	44	91	111	103	8	7.11	8
Support Improvement	410	5	4	5	8	44	101	53	50	67	73	5	6.29	6
Company Loyalty	425	17	11	7	11	16	46	41	84	90	102	9	6.64	7
Open Source Interest	418	140	57	54	32	46	38	20	11	6	14	0	2.41	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	436	81	18.58%
Considering new Interface	436	49	11.24%
System Installed on time?	436	402	92.20%

Average Collection size:		2753248

Type	Count
Public	235
Academic	132
School	14
Consortium	25
Special	1

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	16
[2] 10,001-100,000	151
[3] 100,001-250,000	91
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	96
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	59
[6] over 10,000,001	5

2015 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	437	5	6	12	8	20	37	58	131	113	47	7	6.66	7
ILS Functionality	436		8	15	12	18	41	54	132	116	40	7	6.62	7
Print Functionality	437	4	5	4	5	17	22	36	123	144	77	8	7.16	8
Electronic Functionality	432	12	20	23	27	35	62	61	89	69	34	7	5.66	6
Company Satisfaction	432	5	9	13	15	18	30	51	109	119	63	8	6.69	7
Support Satisfaction	427	5	4	14	12	15	33	36	101	123	84	8	6.92	7
Support Improvement	420	8	7	3	5	46	108	42	71	69	61	5	6.20	6
Company Loyalty	433	23	14	10	9	23	44	49	84	97	80	8	6.35	7
Open Source Interest	426	153	61	59	27	40	37	15	15	5	14	0	2.27	1

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	460	82	17.83%
Considering new Interface	460	47	10.22%
System Installed on time?	460	402	87.39%

Average Collection size:		653631

Type	Count
Public	256
Academic	116
School	22
Consortium	27
Special	3

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	21
[2] 10,001-100,000	168
[3] 100,001-250,000	91
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	98
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	51
[6] over 10,000,001	1

2014 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	354	1	4	9	16	14	29	55	124	76	26	7	6.53	7
ILS Functionality	355	1	2	11	13	16	29	66	104	85	28	7	6.56	7
Print Functionality	351	3	2	4	4	11	13	43	81	125	65	8	7.24	8
Electronic Functionality	347	10	19	28	34	17	45	63	72	41	18	7	5.31	6
Company Satisfaction	352		9	12	17	19	26	57	98	80	34	7	6.43	7
Support Satisfaction	348	2	4	7	11	13	29	50	86	89	57	8	6.82	7
Support Improvement	339	2	3	2	9	38	96	29	49	53	58	5	6.28	6
Company Loyalty	343	13	12	13	17	22	38	43	56	68	61	8	6.15	7
Open Source Interest	346	108	61	49	26	31	25	18	6	8	14	0	2.39	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	361	76	21.05%
Considering new Interface	361	52	14.40%
System Installed on time?	361	322	89.20%

Average Collection size:		707313

Type	Count
Public	182
Academic	111
School	7
Consortium	19
Special	6

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	14
[2] 10,001-100,000	118
[3] 100,001-250,000	81
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	75
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	49
[6] over 10,000,001	2

2013 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	315	3	3	8	14	18	23	36	99	74	37	7	6.61	7
ILS Functionality	314	2	2	7	20	10	20	52	88	72	41	7	6.65	7
Print Functionality	314	3	1	3	4	9	20	35	76	99	64	8	7.21	8
Electronic Functionality	307	7	17	21	29	24	46	52	50	36	25	6	5.36	6
Company Satisfaction	313	4	9	10	16	14	17	43	81	77	42	7	6.51	7
Support Satisfaction	312	4	3	6	8	16	26	28	77	79	65	8	6.91	7
Support Improvement	307	4	2	7	5	17	83	23	57	50	59	5	6.46	7
Company Loyalty	312	21	8	10	9	17	41	26	56	61	63	9	6.19	7
Open Source Interest	304	90	34	49	22	27	40	13	13	7	9	0	2.67	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	324	66	20.37%
Considering new Interface	324	58	17.90%
System Installed on time?	324	292	90.12%

Average Collection size:		835498

Type	Count
Public	139
Academic	87
School	29
Consortium	26
Special	3

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	24
[2] 10,001-100,000	80
[3] 100,001-250,000	64
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	67
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	41
[6] over 10,000,001	2

2012 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	380	2	2	10	19	25	48	50	122	72	30	7	6.37	7
ILS Functionality	380	1	1	5	24	24	41	47	114	94	29	7	6.52	7
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	378	1	6	14	26	22	43	65	98	71	32	7	6.21	7
Support Satisfaction	378	1	5	11	14	35	44	36	102	80	50	7	6.48	7
Support Improvement	371	3	3	6	16	26	99	45	55	69	49	5	6.23	6
Company Loyalty	376	30	11	22	18	25	48	33	76	54	59	7	5.70	7
Open Source Interest	374	97	44	47	35	35	42	28	19	13	14	0	3.01	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	393	79	20.10%
Considering new Interface	393	76	19.34%
System Installed on time?	393	348	88.55%

Average Collection size:		644460

Type	Count
Public	206
Academic	114
School	4
Consortium	21
Special	9

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	17
[2] 10,001-100,000	125
[3] 100,001-250,000	93
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	80
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	54
[6] over 10,000,001	2

2011 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	326	5	6	9	11	21	37	61	102	57	17	7	6.18	7
ILS Functionality	320	1	2	7	18	18	30	63	93	69	19	7	6.39	7
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	326	6	7	19	20	24	35	58	83	53	21	7	5.88	6
Support Satisfaction	324	4	10	11	14	18	44	54	72	68	29	7	6.17	7
Support Improvement	323	5	10	10	12	28	81	37	60	48	32	5	5.87	6
Company Loyalty	323	23	16	16	13	31	44	40	54	55	31	8	5.47	6
Open Source Interest	318	63	32	48	21	34	45	18	27	12	18	0	3.48	3

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	333	76	22.82%
Considering new Interface	333	88	26.43%
System Installed on time?	333	303	90.99%

Average Collection size:		570393

Type	Count
Public	151
Academic	116
School	4
Consortium	15
Special	10

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	10
[2] 10,001-100,000	98
[3] 100,001-250,000	77
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	84
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	40
[6] over 10,000,001	1

2010 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	271	3	5	9	12	19	37	41	77	50	18	7	6.15	7
ILS Functionality	0											0	0.00
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	271	8	8	17	11	26	37	54	57	39	14	7	5.63	6
Support Satisfaction	269	8	7	15	20	23	32	50	56	39	19	7	5.67	6
Support Improvement	271	11	7	16	28	21	87	26	26	26	23	5	5.15	5
Company Loyalty	270	18	15	10	24	29	34	40	40	32	28	6	5.26	6
Open Source Interest	269	64	26	30	17	19	31	29	19	14	20	0	3.59	3

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	282	57	20.21%
Considering new Interface	282	81	28.72%
System Installed on time?	282	242	85.82%

Average Collection size:		580366

Type	Count
Public	142
Academic	88
School	4
Consortium	15
Special	10

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	5
[2] 10,001-100,000	85
[3] 100,001-250,000	51
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	54
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	28
[6] over 10,000,001	1

2009 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	304	3	5	6	9	16	62	56	96	44	7	7	6.06	6
ILS Functionality	0											0	0.00
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	303	5	9	27	23	22	56	48	79	29	5	7	5.34	6
Support Satisfaction	303	3	12	30	23	17	54	45	66	41	12	7	5.44	6
Support Improvement	292	7	11	19	29	23	89	35	39	30	10	5	5.09	5
Company Loyalty	301	32	14	12	14	23	67	31	49	43	16	5	5.06	5
Open Source Interest	300	53	34	26	25	30	40	25	20	23	24	0	3.90	4

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	310	49	15.81%
Considering new Interface	310	85	27.42%
System Installed on time?	310	261	84.19%

2008 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	233	4	7	11	19	16	35	37	64	32	8	7	5.68	6
ILS Functionality	0											0	0.00
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	234	9	9	16	31	28	23	43	43	26	6	6	5.05	6
Support Satisfaction	233	12	14	23	18	21	36	39	38	23	9	6	4.91	5
Support Improvement	0	not applicable
Company Loyalty	233	21	13	19	18	17	36	20	43	34	12	7	4.95	5
Open Source Interest	231	36	23	21	24	17	37	12	23	16	22	5	4.11	4

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	234	54	23.08%
Considering new Interface	234	69	29.49%
System Installed on time?	234	214	91.45%

2007 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	200	4	1	5	10	6	23	29	64	43	15	7	6.41	7
ILS Functionality	0											0	0.00
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	284	5	8	20	23	27	43	47	61	38	12	7	5.50	6
Support Satisfaction	282	6	10	13	27	37	33	42	64	34	16	7	5.48	6
Support Improvement	0	not applicable
Company Loyalty	279	25	10	12	9	16	59	31	42	36	39	5	5.52	6
Open Source Interest	281	54	41	36	32	17	36	21	14	9	21	0	3.35	3

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	288	42	14.58%
Considering new Interface	288	60	20.83%
System Installed on time?	288	1	0.35%

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 análisis 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

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