Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Library Perceptions 2022: Results of the 15th International Survey of Library Automation

by , April 17, 2022.

The International Survey of Library Automation provides a unique opportunity for libraries to evaluate their core technology systems, their associated vendors, and to offer their views on relevant topics and trends. This fifteenth edition of the survey received 2,790 responses. The 43,049 cumulative responses received since 2007 document interesting and important trends related to key technology products and vendors.

2021 the International Survey of Library Automation
This report is an original publication
of Library Technology Guides.
Notable Observations
The decline of legacy products among academic libraries accelerates, with 17% considering plans to migrate. Reasonably high satisfaction rankings for both Voyager and Aleph, strong loyalty scores, and migration intentions favoring Alma suggest most may stay within the Ex Libris camp. Interest in FOLIO continues to increase, suggesting that FOLIO may be Alma’s main competitor in the next phase of migrations. Academic libraries considering migration continue to mention WMS as a candidate, but at a lower level than Alma or FOLIO. Survey data suggests that the transition from the remaining libraries to library services platforms will continue, with an interesting mix of selections divided among Alma, FOLIO, and WMS, as well as some moving to open source combinations such as Koha and Coral.
In the public library sector where traditional ILS products prevail, responses indicate a lower level of interest in changing to new systems (6%), with no prevailing indicators of migration targets. Libraries interested in migration mention a variety of replacement candidates, including Koha (13), Polaris (8), Symphony (6); Apollo (7), Atriuum (6), Evergreen (3), OCLC Wise (3), and VERSO (1). The absence of alternatives perceived as substantially better than the prevailing ILS products suppresses the churn of migrations, compared to the academic sector that has seen well-defined migration patterns toward library services platforms.
Libraries using modern web-based products have little interest in changing systems. Biblionix Apollo received high satisfaction scores and very few libraries using it are considering alternatives (2.7%). Even through their satisfaction ratings are not superlative, libraries using Ex Libris Alma (4.3%) and OCLC WorldShare Management Services (9.7%) expressed little interest in changing systems. Only 2.8% of libraries using Koha with support from ByWater Solutions indicated plans to change. No libraries using Atriuum from Book Systems reported plans to migrate.
Open source products are a routine option in all library sectors. Both major open source ILS products, Koha and Evergreen, show increasing levels of satisfaction, though a bit uneven depending on support arrangements. OPALS used mostly in school and very small academic libraries, earns superlative scores. Implementations of the FOLIO library services platform are underway and interest in new implementations continues to increase with 86 libraries mentioning it among their migration candidates. Narrative comments suggested that many libraries avoid open source products due to a perception that they would need more staff with technical skills.
Most academic libraries have implemented an index-based discovery service. New survey questions this year show little perceived differentiation among these products in their effectiveness for undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty members. The comprehensiveness of coverage was also perceived as similar; A slightly higher portion of academic libraries perceived that OCLC WorldShare Management Services gave more objective results without bias to content providers. Only a small number of responses indicated awareness of the Open Discovery Initiative or that they used it in selecting their discovery service.

The technology needs of libraries very according to their type and size. The survey segments responses to better assess each product within relevant groups. Each annual survey provides a snapshot of the perceived capabilities of each product, and extends ongoing trendlines of performance.

The satisfaction ratings and narrative comments gauge library reactions surrounding the broader events in the industry, such as consolidation, open source initiatives, and the decline of legacy products. Earlier years of the survey reflect the negative impact the private equity acquisitions on SirsiDynix and Innovative. More recently we can see that libraries reacted mostly positively to major consolidations such as ProQuest acquiring Ex Libris and Innovative from their previous private equity owners. Future surveys may reveal the impact of Clarivate’s acquisition of ProQuest.

Survey responses give a glimpse into ongoing migration trends. Academic libraries are shifting away from integrated library systems to library services platforms, with Ex Libris Alma leading the pack, followed by OCLC WorldShare Management Services. FOLIO is now poised to enter this competition, with survey results showing strong interest, though there are still too few implementations to gauge satisfaction. Public libraries show substantially different patterns, with moderate levels of interest in migrating less pronounced preferences for replacement products.

Several themes pervade all editions of the perceptions survey. Large libraries of all types have complex requirements and evaluate their systems on a much harsher scale than smaller organizations. Presenting results without regard to size categories would give misleading impressions. Products designed for small libraries would not be successful among larger and more complex institutions, despite superlative ratings by the small libraries that use them.

In the current environment, the capabilities of the product and the quality of services from the vendor matter more than license models. Conventional integrated library systems prevail in public libraries, with top scores going to proprietary products in the largest tier and to those based on commercially supported open source software in the mid-size category. Small and very small public libraries also gave excellent marks to proprietary ILS products. Small libraries give superlative scores--with little differentiation among question categories--to products able to meet their basic requirements without complex features they don't need. In the academic library sector, survey results reveal notable patterns regarding library services platforms. These products received strong marks in most categories but are not rated as highly for managing print resources than legacy ILS products.

I appreciate all the individuals that took time to respond to the survey this year given the many other issues competing for their attention. Each response contributes to a growing body of data available for the broader library community to consider when considering options on whether to retain or replace their strategic technology products. Libraries have always relied on recommendations from their peers as they make system decisions. This survey provides a large aggregation of evaluative data that can complement more in-depth conversations that libraries considering a system would have with specific reference sites.


Table of Contents


  • Koha
  • Evergreen
  • FOLIO
  • Academic Discovery Services
  • Selected Statistical Tables
  • Survey details

  • Introduction

    top

    Launch the interactive version of the survey's statistical results

    The 2022 Library Automation Perceptions Report provides evaluative ratings submitted by individuals representing 2849 libraries from 95 countries describing experiences with 132 different automation products, including both proprietary and open source systems. Since last year, the survey is titled according to the year in which the report is published rather than when the survey period started. The survey results include 544 narrative comments providing candid statements -- both positive and negative – about the products and companies involved or statements of intent regarding future automation plans. This report analyzes the results of the survey, presents a variety of statistical tables based on the data collected, and provides some initial observations.

    View the narrative comments given by responders
    It aims to provide information to libraries as they evaluate their options for strategic technology products and to the organizations involved in providing these products and services as constructive criticism to help guide improvements.

    Selected Survey Findings: Top Performers
    Large Public: Polaris was rated highest in all categories except for functionality related to electronic resources. Sierra, though used in many large public libraries, receives much lower scores than Polaris. These indicators are consistent with Innovative increasingly promoting Polaris as its strategic public library product.
    Large academic libraries with collections over 1 million items gave Alma positive ratings in most categories. Sierra was the only other system with enough responses to appear in this category, and received top ratings for print functionality and customer support.
    For public libraries, ebooks and audiobooks tend to be the main electronic resources. SirsiDynix Symphony ranked highest for functionality for managing electronic resources among large and mid-sized public libraries. Its eResource Central module that provides important functionality for managing these types of resources. Symphony has seen steadily improving ratings in this survey since 2008.
    Midsized public: Koha with support from ByWater Solutions leads in all categories. Polaris was second in overall ILS satisfaction and in functionality for print resource management.
    Biblionix Apollo, developed especially for small public libraries, received top ratings among this group. Among very small public libraries, Apollo rated best in all categories.
    Atriuum from Book Systems received slightly higher scores by small public libraries. for ILS Support and print resource management
    OPALS, the open source ILS developed by Media Flex, received highest scores in all categories among school and small academic libraries. The narrative comments voiced unanimous support for the capabilities of the software and support services.

    Previous editions: 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007.

    Libraries make major investments in strategic automation products, both during the initial implementation period and in annual fees paid for support, software maintenance, and other services. They depend on these products for efficient management of their daily operations and to provide access to their collections and services. This survey report allows libraries to benefit from the perceptions of their peers regarding the quality of automation systems and of the performance of the organizations involved in their development or support.

    Libraries in immediate need of replacing their current system, or in the process of making longer term technology strategies, benefit from data across a variety of sources as they assess options. Technical documentation, marketing materials, product demonstrations, product vision statements and functionality checklists represent some sources of information to help libraries evaluate automation products. The vendor community naturally provides information and materials that presents their products in positive terms.

    Another important avenue of investigation involves data from libraries with first-hand experience of the products and vendors. This survey aims to measure the perceptions libraries hold regarding their current automation products, the companies that support them and to capture their intentions about future migration options. It also explores interest in open source library automation systems, a key issue for the industry. Though its large number of responses, the survey aggregates the subjective experience of many libraries to create meaningful results, reasonably informative about the collective experience of libraries with this set of products and companies.

    The survey allows only one response per library and only one response per individual. This approach ensures that no one library or individual can disproportionately impact survey results. The survey checks for existing responses from each e-mail address or library record number in libraries.org as part of its validation routine.

    Confidentiality and Anonymity

    top

    The survey preserves the anonymity of the individuals responding as well as the institutions with which they are associated. Although response records contain data identifying the institution and the responders, extensive measures are taken to protect these data. Only the administrator of the survey has access to the raw survey response records. The tables of statistical summaries, interactive reports, and narrative reports are designed never to reveal identities of individuals or institutions. The survey publishes any narrative comments given in the responses. While preserving the original response comments, a duplicate of the comments are made in the survey records, with any identifying wording redacted. Names or institutions are replaced with a symbol indicating redaction: […].

    Caveats

    top

    Any interpretation of the statistics must be seen in the context that larger and more complex libraries do not rate their automation systems as favorably as small libraries.

    Libraries may refer to the results of this survey as they formulate technology strategies or evaluate specific products. Although the impressions of libraries using a given product inform one area of investigation, libraries should be careful not to overemphasize the statistics or narrative comments in a procurement process. While it reflects the responses of a large number of libraries using these products, the survey should be taken more as an instrument to guide what questions that a library might bring up in their considerations than to drive any conclusions. Especially for libraries with more complex needs, it's unrealistic to expect satisfaction scores at the very top of the rankings. Large and complex libraries exercise all aspects of an automation system and at any given time may have outstanding issues that would result in survey responses short of the highest marks. While a given product may earn positive responses from one sector, it may not be a good choice for libraries with different requirements.

    Constructive criticism

    top

    The survey results also aims to provide useful information to the companies involved in the library automation industry. While many companies perform their own measures of client satisfaction, this survey may show perceptions quite different from internal customer surveys. The rankings in each category and the published comments can represent provide useful data to assist each of the companies hone in on problem areas and make any needed adjustments to their support procedures or product directions.

    Survey Response Demographics

    top

    Collection Size Categories
    countmoreless
    175010,000
    80210,00150,000
    37850,001100,000
    458100,001250,000
    277250,001500,000
    187500,0011,000,000
    2881,000,00110,000,000
    4310,000,001
    182No collection size data
    2790Total of Categories

    This year, the survey attracted 2,849 responses from libraries in 85 different countries. The countries most strongly represented include the United States (2,122 responses), followed by Canada (174), Australia (122), United Kingdom (86), Spain (33), New Zealand (22), and Ireland (18). As with the general demographics of the libraries.org database, the respondents of the library primarily come from libraries in English-speaking countries.

    While the vast majority of responses continue to come from libraries in the United States, the survey aims to address the international library automation arena. This year the survey form was offered in English, Spanish (translated by Nieves González), French (translated by Alexandre Lemaire), German (translated by Susanne Schuster), Italian (translated by Andrea Marchitelli), Finnish (translated by Petri Tonteri ). Responses received from Spanish-speaking countries, included Spain (33), Argentina (6), Chile (7), Colombia (8), Mexico (4), and Uruguay (1). A total of 727 of the 2,849 total responses (25.5 percent) came from libraries outside the United States.

    The survey received 2,790 responses: ( 2020=2,849; 2020=2,902; 2019=3,234; 2018=3,552; 2017=3,992; 2016=4,042; 2015=3,453; 2014=3,141; 2013=3,002; 2012=3,030; 2011=2,432; 2010=2,173; 2009=2,099; 2008=1,453; 2007=1,779 ). Across all its editions of the survey, the cumulative data collected totals 43,049 responses. The survey was open between November 17, 2021 and March 21, 2022.

    There were 182 responses with no collection size data provided. These libraries were not able to be included in the parts of the analysis where libraries are segmented by size categories.

    Public libraries were represented in largest numbers, with 1,209 responses, followed by academic libraries with 856. This year 244 responses came from school libraries.

    The Survey Demographics Report summarizes the library types, countries, and products represented in the survey results:

    General Information about the Survey

    top

    Productcountreport
    Alma376ils report
    Symphony342ils report
    Sierra279ils report
    OPALS253ils report
    Polaris184ils report
    VERSO146ils report
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions141ils report
    WorldShare Management Services124ils report
    Apollo110ils report
    Atriuum90ils report
    Library.Solution90ils report
    Horizon81ils report
    Destiny66ils report
    Evergreen -- Equinox49ils report
    Koha28ils report
    ALEPH 50027ils report
    Spydus26ils report
    Carl.X25ils report
    Voyager24ils report
    Evergreen -- Independent23ils report
    Koha -- Independent16ils report
    EOS.Web15ils report
    Libero14ils report
    V-smart13ils report
    Koha -- PTFS Europe12ils report
    Evergreen -- MOBIUS11ils report
    Millennium9ils report
    Bibliovation9ils report
    Alexandria8ils report
    FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services8ils report
    AbsysNet8ils report

    The survey attracted responses from libraries using 98 different ILS products. Those represented by more than 20 are shown in the accompanying table, with links that generate a report providing the survey results for that product for each year the survey has been offered. Many other products were represented in the survey with few number of responses. Systems with less than 10 did not appear in the main statistical tables. These responses can be seen through the individual ILS Product Reports.

    This report is an original publication of Library Technology Guides and is not slated to appear in any print publication. Please direct any comments or enquiries to the author. The execution of the survey and compiling its results represent hundreds of hours of effort. If you find this report helpful, please consider making a donation to Library Technology Guides.

    This survey and its analysis reflect my ongoing interest in following trends in the library automation industry. It is designed to complement the annual Library Systems Report feature that I have written between 2002 and 2012 for Library Journal and since 2013 for American Libraries. The survey underlying the Library Systems Report article relies on information provided by the companies that offer library automation products and services. The survey that serves as the basis for this article collects data from the libraries themselves.


    Survey Results

    top

    Migration Patterns and Trends

    The survey provides the opportunity for libraries to indicate interest in migrating to a new system and what candidate systems are under consideration. The percentages shown reflect the number of responses where the library indicated that it is shopping for a new system relative to the total number of responses for that product. This table summarizes responses where the library indicates it is shopping for a new system.

    Percent of Libraries Considering Moving to new ILS
    Current ILS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
    ALEPH 500 9.1% 13.6% 11.9% 18.9% 25.7% 34.6% 40.4% 45.7% 55.3% 64.6% 66.9% 75.0% 78.3% 65.0% 81.5%
    Alma -- -- -- -- -- 25.0% 16.7% 4.3% 2.3% 2.5% 1.2% 3.2% 3.7% 3.4% 4.3%
    Apollo 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% 0.9% 0.0% 1.8% 2.9% 1.1% 2.7%
    Horizon 49.3% 61.5% 45.2% 57.3% 54.7% 49.7% 45.4% 42.2% 34.9% 28.6% 31.6% 35.0% 25.0% 34.1% 17.3%
    Library.Solution 12.1% 3.3% 8.7% 14.3% 14.4% 13.6% 12.9% 10.8% 18.3% 12.4% 25.2% 22.5% 16.4% 10.3% 20.0%
    Millennium 6.4% 8.6% 11.7% 18.7% 31.2% 42.4% 45.3% 56.9% 65.5% 75.0% 71.3% 74.2% 82.1% 87.5% 77.8%
    Polaris 1.6% 9.4% 6.5% 5.8% 1.9% 1.2% 0.7% 5.3% 7.9% 7.3% 7.9% 8.1% 8.4% 7.3% 6.5%
    Sierra -- -- -- -- -- 3.1% 6.4% 10.8% 12.9% 13.4% 19.2% 21.4% 33.1% 31.4% 34.8%
    Symphony 14.9% 23.1% 15.8% 20.2% 22.5% 20.4% 20.4% 20.8% 18.0% 18.6% 19.8% 18.7% 16.7% 17.5% 15.5%
    Voyager 21.6% 21.8% 19.5% 32.3% 38.3% 49.4% 50.9% 67.5% 69.2% 66.7% 69.7% 83.1% 82.4% 75.0% 70.8%
    WorldShare Management Services -- -- -- -- 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 4.1% 3.2% 6.0% 7.0% 9.2% 5.1% 10.5% 9.7%


    Three legacy systems show signs that they have entered a final phase of thier product cycle, with over 65 percent of the libraries using them stating interest in migration (Voyager: 75.0; Aleph: 65.0; Millennium:87.5); We can anticipate that the numbers of libraries using these products to decline in the next few years. It is notable that the numbers of libraries using Aleph and Voyager indicating migration plans decreased a bit since last year. We cannot expect full extinction of any of these products for quite some time. There will be residual libraries using these products for at least another five years.

    Libraries using SirsiDynix Horizon have shown a diminishing interest in migrating to new systems since 2010; The number of libraries planning to move from Horizon has vacillated. This year, 34.1 percent indicated migration intentions. SirsiDynix asserts that it will continue to support Horizon for the indefinite future and libraries using it show only moderate interest in changing.

    Several flagship ILS products show a moderate interest in migration (Library.Solution: 10.3; Sierra 31.4; Symphony 17.5). About seven percent of libraries using Polaris and ten percent of those using WorldShare Management Services indicated interest in migrating.

    Products with only negligible interest include Alma (3.4%) and Apollo (1.1%)

    The academic library arena remains in a phase of migrations away from legacy products. The survey provides some indicators which may indicate the direction of future migrations:

    • Aleph: 40 libraries responded; 65.0 percent indicated interest in migration; most (20) included Alma as a replacement candidate; 6 mentioned FOLIO; and 3 WMS. Loyalty score: 6.49.
    • Voyager: 32 libraries responded; 75 percent indicated interest in migration; 11 included Alma as a replacement candidate; 6 mentioned FOLIO; 4 mentioned WMS. Loyalty Score: 6.90.
    • Millennium: 16 libraries responded; 88.5 percent indicated interest in migration; 6 indicated Alma as a replacement candidate; 2 mentioned Sierra; 4 mentioned FOLIO; Loyalty Score: 3.57.

    Large and mid-sized academic libraries give Alma high ratings for overall functionality and for electronic resource management, but give it weaker scores for managing print. These libraries give Sierra, Symphony, Aleph, and Voyager higher scores for managing print resources. Given that academic libraries spend ever smaller proportions of their collection budgets on print resources, perceived weaknesses in this category does not diminish the strategic impact of library services platforms such as Alma and WorldShare Management Services. Small academic libraries, which use Alma as members of consortia, generally gave Alma lower ratings. Alma’s ratings show strengths in larger academic institutions and for managing electronic resources. The libraries using Alma indicate very low interest in changing systems. Academic libraries using legacy systems identify Alma as a migration candidate more than any other product. All these factors can be seen as indicators of the continued momentum of Alma among large and mid-sized academic libraries. Interest in FOLIO shown through migration intentions continues to build, though with with only a handful of libraries usingg it in production, it does not appear in the satisfaction rating tables.

    In order to identify potential patterns of future system migrations, the survey asks for the names of the products that the library is considering. In most cases, the responses included multiple products under consideration. The candidate systems mentioned may indicate serious evaluation or mere name recognition. Tabulating the names of the products listed shows strong interest in Alma (92), FOLIO (86), Koha (50), Symphony (31). WorldShare Management Services (34) Polaris (20), and Sierra (10). When asked about open source interest regardless of active plans to change systems, 150 mentioned Koha, 141 mentioned FOLIO, 31 mentioned Evergreen, and 3 mentioned TIND.

    FOLIO has entered its implementation following a period of design and development. A handful of implementations have moved into production. This year 14 libraries using FOLIO responded to the survey, spanning 3 service providers: EBSCO Information Services (8), Index data (2), and SCANBIT Technology. Without broader implementation, this survey cannot yet address its performance, but can measure interest. FOLIO has been mentioned by a growing number of libraries as a possible migration candidate. (In 2021 86 libraries looking for a new system listed FOLIO among products under consideration; 2020: 882019: 104; 2018: 65; 2017: 59; 2016: 41). 8 libraries using Alma noted interest in FOLIO; seven of these libraries indicated they were considering changing systems.

    The following table summarizes data provided on survey responses relating to whether the library is planning to migrate to a new system in the near future and candidate systems under consideration.

    2021 Migration Intentions
    Current ILSRespShoppingPercentAcademic AlmaWorldSharePolarisSierraSymphonyFOLIOKohaEvergreenTIND
    ALEPH 500 27 22 81.5 10 17100112200
    Horizon 81 14 17.3 5 441042300
    Library.Solution 90 18 20.0 5 101222200
    Millennium 9 7 77.8 3 210003100
    Sierra 279 97 34.8 46 34109214301441
    Polaris 184 12 6.5 1 011010320
    Symphony 342 53 15.5 18 1155228721
    Voyager 24 17 70.8 8 930005201
    Any Product 9234201031865094

    Note: These figures represent the number of times each product was mentioned among the candidates listed. The matrix lists only selected current ILS products and candidate systems under consideration. The sum of values given at the bottom of each column represents the total number of times the product was mentioned as a replacement candidate, including for products not among those selected for the table. The highlighted values indicate where the candidate system mentioned is provided by the same company as the incumbent.

    Industry Consolidation

    top

    Survey results help document the impact of the changes in the business landscape. Following the acquisition of SirsiDynix by Vista Equity Partners, survey results for Symphony and Horizon dropped and eventually recovered once harsh product strategies were withdrawn; further improvement was seen when SirsiDynix was acquired by ICV. Innovative saw diminished satisfaction ratings when it was sold to private equity and improved when Innovative became part of ProQuest. Aleph and Voyager generally saw satisfaction improvement following Ex Libris acquisition by ProQuest, though Alma’s ratings seem unaffected.

    The acquisition of ProQuest by Clarivate completed in December 2021 has not yet had time to impact product satisfaction ratings. This year’s survey did capture a number of comments that address industry consolidation.

    Ex Libris provides great technical support and they are relatively quick. I'm concerned that Clarivate Analytics is gobbling up all of the other big players (Ex Libris, ProQuest, Innovative).

    We purchased our ILS from Polaris, and we enjoyed doing business with them. We are less happy with Polaris since they have been acquired.

    We were concerned about changes in support when ProQuest acquired III but support has remained excellent.

    Polaris customer support continues to be amazing even through the tumultuous times of numerous acquisitions. They are quick to respond to tickets or emails, and having a dedicated Site Manager allows us to build a great working relationship. I hope this customer support structure doesn't change with the current acquisition and that Clarivate/ProQuest/Ex Libris recognizes what a wonderful group of employees they have in their Polaris Support department!

    We loved Polaris when it was its own company. Since it was bought out, our impression of its quality with regards to customer service, technology upgrades, and overall satisfaction has gone down every year. If my library wasn't part of a consortium, I would be shopping around for something else.

    We have been very disappointed with the customer service from both our current ILS vendor (iii) and our current discovery vendor (Ex Libris). After the merger announced last year, we have very little confidence that the overall performance, services, or support will improve.

    Recent acquisition of Innovative by ProQuest has resulted in a change in strategic direction away from academic libraries towards public libraries. New system Vega is not targeted at academic libraries so expect to see a continued shift away from Sierra towards other systems for academic libraries.

    While the ProQuest buyout of Innovative did seem to result in a number of long term bugs being resolved, we also had several bug tickets closed with a status of "Won't fix." We wonder how the Clarivate purchase will impact support. We hold no hope for meaningful product development, though - just more new skins developed from poor UX research (if any at all) for the same antiquated backend architecture and business logic.

    we're nervous about all of the consolidation in the market. We're interested in FOLIO but worry it's not developed enough yet for us to commit.

    International Perspective

    top

    The survey aims for a broad international perspective. Responses were received from the international clients of the systems commonly used in the United States as well as those that may be used primarily within other geographic regions or countries. A total of 1,006 responses were received from libraries located outside of the United States. Many of the products more familiar outside of the United States did not receive an adequate number of responses to appear in the main statistical tables.

    International Responses
    product Total responsesUnited StatesInternational
    All Products 2,7902,110680
    Alma 250209126
    Symphony 342234108
    Sierra 27923841
    Polaris 18417311
    VERSO 1461460
    WorldShare Management Services 1249628
    Apollo 1101082
    Library.Solution90837

    top

    Innovative company profile

    Innovative Interfaces, Inc.

    Innovative Interfaces develops and supports a variety of technology products for libraries, including Sierra, Polaris, and Virtua and is active in almost all global regions. The company was acquired by ProQuest in the beginning of 2020. In December 2021 ProQuest was acquired by Clarivate.

    This year's survey provides the opportunity to note any changes that may be due to the new ownership and management. In the last two years, both Sierra and Polaris saw increases in satisfaction across all categories, with the the strongest improvement seen in support. This upward trend in satisfaction indicates that the libraries using Innovative's products have not had an adverse impact from the business transition and that the Innovative may be better positioned for development and support under ProQuest. The impact of the Clarivate acquisition will not become apparent until the next year's survey results.

    Libraries of all types and sizes have implemented the products of Innovative (view company profile). The company was well represented in this year’s survey results with 279 from libraries using Sierra, 184 using Polaris, 9 using Millennium, and 7 using Virtua, or 479 in total.

    Innovative has seen changes in its ownership over the course of this survey. These business transitions have had at least some impact on the levels of satisfaction for the products involved. The first business transition took place in March 2012 when its founder sold the company to a pair of private equity firms. The impact the change of ownership is reflected in a steady downward trend in satisfaction scores from 2013 through 2015. Innovative acquired Polaris in March 2014. A downward trend in satisfaction corresponded with the transition of Polaris as a standalone company to ownership by Innovative. VTLS was acquired by Innovative in June 2014. The satisfaction ratings for Virtua have been erratic throught all years of the survey, making it difficult to interpret the drivers for change in any given year. Innovative was acquired by ProQuest in January 2020. Under ProQuest, there has been a pattern of improving satisfaction across Innovative's products. ProQuest was acquired by Clarivate in December 2021.

    Sierra

    top

    Sierra (full statistical report and narrative comments) has been implemented by many types of libraries throughout many international regions. This year responses were completed by 279 libraries, including 104 publics, 80 academic libraries, 14 consortia and 2 special libraries. Loyalty scores were weak overall (5.51), with large public libraries (5.15) and large academics (3.93) expressing the least commitment to acquiring their next system from this company.

    When considering ratings given over time, ILS Support declined significantly from 2012 (7.96) through 2019 (5.16). This year's satisfaction score increased to 6.20. General satisfaction increased over the last two years (5.92 > 6.22). Innovative generally saw a steep decline in performance ratings during its period of private equity ownership (2012-2019). So far, its ownership by ProQuest has prompted more positive satisfaction ratings. 96 out of the 279 responses (34.4%) indicated interest in moving from Sierra to a new system.

    The portion of libraries using Sierra signaling plans to change to another product has steadily increased since its launch in 2011. In 2012, 3.1 percent indicated interest in changing, climbing to 34.8% this year. Of all the currently supported and developed products, Sierra showed the highest number of migration intentions.

    Perspective: The overall use of Sierra continues to drift toward public libraries. Within the ProQuest product family, Ex Libris Alma is positioned as the strategic product for academic and research libraries and Polaris as the strategic product for public libraries. Libraries rate its capabilities for print resource management (7.67) much more highly than its functionality for electronic resource management (4.67). Large public libraries give Sierra much higher overall satisfaction ratings (6.92) than do large academics (5.10). These trends suggest that Sierra, though a fully supported product, will eventually see a decline in implementations. 34.4% of responses indicated plans to migrate, with Alma and FOLIO mentioned most as replacement candidates. Given the very long product cycles for ILS products and its ongoing use by many high-profile libraries and consortia, we can expect that Innovative will continue to support and perform some development on Sierra for the next decade. The upward trend for all response categories for the last two years suggest that the product is receiving more attention under the umbrella of ProQuest than it did under private equity ownership.

    The following table presents the 2021 survey results by library type and size

    2021 Sierra Responses by Sector
    SierraallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS2746.22 416.22345.97205.10576.47376.68126.921156.20
    ILSFunctionality2736.42 416.49346.09195.21576.60376.84126.921156.20
    PrintFunctionality2717.37 417.59347.59207.35566.95377.49107.401157.67
    ElectronicFunctionality2694.99 405.17334.88203.40565.32365.53124.831154.67
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport2706.17 396.15345.56206.60556.31376.54126.751156.20
    CompanyLoyalty2675.63 385.18345.18205.00546.09376.19126.921155.60

    Millennium

    top

    A decreasing number of libraries continue to use Millennium (full product report and narrative comments) with many shifting to Sierra and other products (see selection/deselection report). Of the libraries that continue to use Millennium, the proportion of academics are higher than publics compared to Sierra (see graph of Millennium sites by type).

    The numbers of responses from libraries using Millennium have declined since 2011 when 455 responded, consistent with the gradual migration from this legacy product. Only 9 libraries using Millennium responded this year (2020=16; 2019=39; 2018=66; 2017=94; 2016=144; 2015=174; 2014=210; 2013=248; 2012=389; 2011=454). Over the editions of the survey, Millennium has shifted from Innovative's flagship ILS to a legacy product. Out of the 9 libraries which responded this year, 6 indicated interest in moving to a new system. The percentages of libraries indicating interest in moving to a new system has increased from 6.4% in 2007 before the announcement of Sierra to 66.6% this year. Migration options mentioned included Alma (2), WorldShare Management Services (1), Koha (1), and FOLIO (3). More libraries mentioned Alma or FOLIO as a replacement candidate for Millennium. None of the responses listed Innovative's own Sierra ILS as a replacement candidate.

    Response data from previous years for Millennium shows steady ratings from 2007 through 2010, with declining satisfaction scores since. This year support scores improved, though company loyalty declined. (General satisfaction: 2007: 7.17, 2008: 7.08, 2009: 7.13, 2010: 7.11, 2011: 6.88, 2012: 6.68, 2013: 6.44, 2014: 6.12, 2015: 5.77, 2016: 5.14, 2017: 5.47, 2018: 5.23, 2019: 5.32; 2020: 4.69).

    Perspective: All libraries still using Millennium have plans to change, whether stated so explicitely in this survey or not. Since Innovative introduced Sierra as the successor to Millennium over a decade ago, it is not surprising that its use is diminishing rapidly. Libraries using Millennium that planned to stay with Innovative and upgrade to Sierra would have likely done so long ago. Those remaining seem to be planning to move to other alternatives. Millennium is approaching the end of its product cycle and we can expect the number of remaining installations to drop rapidly. The score for company loyalty (2.67) was the lowest for any product or category in this year's survey results. Libraries using Millennium are clearly ready to move on.

    The following table presents the 2021 survey results by library type and size

    2021 Millennium Responses by Sector
    MillenniumallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS94.33 10100001
    ILSFunctionality94.11 10100001
    PrintFunctionality96.89 10100001
    ElectronicFunctionality93.11 10100001
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport95.22 10100001
    CompanyLoyalty92.67 10100001

    Polaris

    top

    Polaris (full product report and narrative comments) has been implemented primarily by public libraries) within the United States and Canada, with 176 libraries responding to this year’s survey. Polaris continues to be well appreciated by large public libraries, earning top rankings in for general satisfaction (7.80), overall ILS functionality (7.40), print resource management (8.07), satisfaction for customer support (7.67), and company loyalty (7.93). Polaris was rated second for effectiveness for management of electronic resources (6.20), where Symphony was rated better (6.58). The overall level of scores in the category of electronic resource management was substantially lower than others.

    From 2007 through 2012 Polaris consistently was rated as one of the top performing systems, though in 2008 libraries gave somewhat lower ratings for support. From 2012 through 2019, ratings for Polaris declined in all categories. In the last two years, satisfaction scores improved in all categories, with the sharpest rise in company loyalty.

    Perspective: Throughout its business history, Innovative products have been implemented by all types of libraries, including academic and public as well as legal and medical libraries. Formidable competition from Ex Libris limited Sierra's success among academic libraries. Although implementations, support, and development will continue, we can anticipate a diminishing role for Sierra. Now that both Innovative and Ex Libris are part of ProQuest, Ex Libris will continue to expand its reach into academic and research libraries and Innovative seems positioned to focus more on public libraries, with Polaris as its flagship resource management product and Vega as its strategic discovery and patron engagement platform. These priorities seem to continue to apply now that ProQuest is part of Clarivate. This year’s survey results show Polaris as well positioned as the strategic ILS within Clarivate. Polaris was rated quite highly by large and mid-sized public libraries, those with the larges economic impact. Survey results have improved for Polaris since it became part of ProQuest. Going forward, it will be important to track whether this trend continues as Polaris goes forward under the stewardship of Clarivate.

    The following table presents the 2021 survey results by library type and size

    2021 Polaris Responses by Sector
    PolarisallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS1767.57 78.14201007.56417.6367.831147.50
    ILSFunctionality1767.55 77.57201007.62417.5167.331147.57
    PrintFunctionality1737.83 78.1420977.96417.8867.671147.79
    ElectronicFunctionality1716.26 76.4320966.36406.3365.331146.00
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport1717.31 77.4320957.32417.2467.671147.50
    CompanyLoyalty1757.26 78.00201007.15407.3067.671147.64

    Virtua

    top

    Virtua continues to be supported by Innovative, is no longer sold, and its number of installations is falling rapidly. This year 7 libraries using Virtua (full product report and narrative comments) responded to the survey. Two of these libraries stated interest in migrating to a new system (29%). The number of responses was too low for confident interpretation of results. The ratings this year were mixed, with dramatically improved company loyalty, a slight improvement in support, and diminished ratings for general satisfaction.

    Perspective: Since VTLS was acquired by Innovative in June 2014, its products have not been marketed or further developed, though support continues. Many of the libraries that implemented Virtua did so for specialized functionality that may not be readily available in other products. Now considered a legacy product, we can expect the number of installations of Virtua to continue to decline rapidly, though some libraries may continue using it for a few more years.

    The following table presents the 2021 survey results by library type and size

    2021 Virtua Responses by Sector
    VirtuaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS75.29 20200000
    ILSFunctionality75.14 20200000
    PrintFunctionality77.00 20200000
    ElectronicFunctionality72.43 20200000
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport77.29 20200000
    CompanyLoyalty76.29 20200000

    Ex Libris company profile

    Ex Libris

    top

    Ex Libris (view company profile) specializes in technologies for academic, research, and national libraries, offering a wide range of products and services, including its current Alma library services platform. The company continues to support its legacy Aleph and Voyager integrated library systems, though the number installations continues to diminish. This year 376 libraries using Alma, 27 using Aleph, and 24 using Voyager responded to the survey, for a total of 427 overall. Its products have been implemented by libraries in all geographic regions. Ex Libris was acquired by ProQuest in December 2015. ProQuest was acquired by Clarivate in January 2022.

    The libraries which have implemented Ex Libris products tend to be large and complex, and tend not to give superlative ratings. Ex Libris offers a variety of products not addressed by the survey, including its Leganto course list management application, Esploro for support of academic research programs, Rapido for the management of interlibrary loan transactions, and campusM as a mobile and web content management platform for academic institutions. The academic discovery section of this report covers Ex Libris Primo and Summon.

    Alma

    top

    Alma (full product report and narrative comments), designed for academic, research, and national libraries (graph of Alma implementations by type) earned top rankings among academic libraries with collections over 1 million volumes for for general ILS satisfaction (6.91), print resource functionality (7.40) effectiveness of managing electronic resources (6.88), and company loyalty (7.07). Sierra was the only other system with enough responses to appear in this category and received higher scores for print resource management and customer support. Mid-sized academic libraries generally gave Alma higher scores than large academic libraries. Small academics gave somewhat less favorable scores in most categories. This year Alma showed a bit lower ratings in all categories compared to 2020. 4.3 percent of libraries responding indicated interest in changing systems.

    Mid-sized academics rated Alma highest in the category of Overall ILS functionality (7.36), effectiveness in managing electronic resources (7.10), and company loyalty (7.05).

    Alma was not rated as positively among small academic libraries. Its ragings were in the lower third of the pack, except in the category relating to the management of electronic resources, its scores were in the upper third (6.57).

    Perspective: As the dominant resource management product used by academic Libraries, much is at stake with Alma’s capabilities. The rise of Alma among academic libraries has been reflected in this survey since its launch in 2012. The number of responses has increased across each edition of the survey (2012=8; 2013=18; 2014=46; 2015=88; 2016=161; 2017=260; 2018=317; 2019=383; 220=322; 2021=376). Alma has been implemented by large academic libraries and is a complex product that addresses a wider range of functionality than integrated library systems. Although the satisfaction scores given to Alma are moderate, only a handful of libraries indicate interest in changing to another product. Of libraries considering migrating from legacy products, Alma continues to be listed as a migration candidate more than any other option, though interest in FOLIO is rising rapidly. Alma receives higher marks for its functionality for the management of electronic resources than for print. Since academic libraries generally spend most of their collection budgets on electronic resources, weaker capabilities for managing print does not seem to detract substantially from the overall satisfaction levels for Alma.

    Alma is a sophisticated product used mostly in larger libraries with complex requirements. Smaller academic libraries, in contrast, often complain that Alma may be too complex.

    Survey results for Alma saw little change following the acquisition of Ex Libris by ProQuest in 2015. Any change in library perceptions of Alma due to Ex Libris becoming part of Clarivate will be reflected in future survey results.

    The following table presents the 2021 survey results by library type and size

    2021 Alma Responses by Sector
    AlmaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS3676.83 1016.57997.02756.910000146.93
    ILSFunctionality3667.12 1007.08997.36756.990000147.29
    PrintFunctionality3647.28 997.09987.42757.280000147.29
    ElectronicFunctionality3666.80 1006.57997.09756.880000146.71
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport3656.14 1016.05986.40745.930000146.43
    CompanyLoyalty3596.76 996.03977.04737.070000147.36

    Voyager

    top

    Voyager, (full product report and narrative comments), acquired by Ex Libris from Elsevier in Nov 2006, and developed specifically for academic libraries, (graph of Voyager implementations by type) though during a time when their collections included mostly print materials.

    Its legacy in print can be seen in its ratings were its functionality for print received its highest scores (7.17) and functionality for electronic resources received the lowest (3.83).

    This year libraries gave the most positive ratings to Voyager for customer support (7.39) and in company loyalty (6.87). Most libraries currently using Voyager indicate interest in migrating to a new system (16 out of 24 or 66.7%). Of those considering migrating, more mentioned Alma among the candidate replacements (9). Others mentioned included FOLIO (5), WorldShare Management Services (3), TIND (1), and Koha (2).

    Perspective: During the early years of this survey, Voyager was one of the leading products for academic libraries. The acquisition of Voyager by Ex Libris in 2007 was followed by sharply improved satisfaction scores for the next few years. With the introduction of Alma and WorldShare Management Services as library services platforms better suited for the needs of academic libraries, the number of installations of Voyager diminished. Since 2013 there has been a steady improvement in satisfaction for Voyager, especially for support. This year, overall ILS satisfaction fell, with other categories improving slightly. The declining number of installations, survey responses, and the high percentage of libraries stating interest in migrating, Voyager is approaching the end of its product cycle. Support for Voyager seems assured for as long as it continues to be used by high-profile libraries.

    The following table presents the 2021 survey results by library type and size

    2021 Voyager Responses by Sector
    VoyagerallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS245.25 35500000
    ILSFunctionality245.25 35500000
    PrintFunctionality247.17 35500000
    ElectronicFunctionality243.83 35500000
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport237.39 35500000
    CompanyLoyalty236.87 35500000

    Aleph

    top

    Aleph (full product report and narrative comments), an established ILS product created by Ex Libris primarily for academic libraries (graph of Aleph implementations by type) continues to be used in many libraries, though the numbers are diminishing, (see selection/deselection report) driven by Aleph’s orientation to print materials and the increasing dominance of electronic resources in academic libraries.

    Ratings in all categories were similar to those given last year, with the most improved scores seen for overall ILS satisfaction. Libraries using Aleph have shown a growing loyalty to Ex Libris from 2007 (4.65) through this year (6.62).

    Most (21 out of 27 or 77.8%) libraries using Aleph indicate interest in moving to a new system. Migration candidates mentioned included Alma (17), WorldShare Management Services (1), FOLIO (12), and Koha (2). These statistics point to a trend that a large portion of libraries now using Aleph will stay within the Ex Libris fold and eventually move to Alma, though many are also considering FOLIO.

    Perspective: Aleph has been a mainstay for academic and national libraries as well as for large consortia in many global regions for more than three decades. But its architecture has become outdated and functional capabilities no longer align well with most libraries. This year, responders gave its print capabilities their highest ratings (7.48) and the lowest to its management of electronic resources (3.81). Within Ex Libris, Alma has long eclipsed Aleph as its strategic offering. Like Voyager, support for Aleph is expected to continue for several years as libraries move on to other systems. Once Aleph and Voyager fully wind down, Ex Libris will be able to fully focus all its support resources on Alma and its other new-generation products. Aleph is still used by many large libraries and consortia, so its eventual extinction still lies several years in the future.

    The following table presents the 2021 survey results by library type and size

    2021 ALEPH 500 Responses by Sector
    ALEPH 500allAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS276.26 44501001
    ILSFunctionality276.26 44501001
    PrintFunctionality277.48 44501001
    ElectronicFunctionality273.81 44501001
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport266.69 44500001
    CompanyLoyalty266.62 44501001

    OCLC company profile

    OCLC

    top

    OCLC, a non-profit membership organization (view company profile), offers many different products and services to libraries. OCLC has developed WorldShare Management Services and WorldCat discovery service and supports a variety of ILS products acquired from other companies. This year 122 libraries using WorldShare Management Services responded to the survey.

    WorldShare Management Services

    top

    A total of 112 libraries using WorldShare Management Services (full product report and narrative comments), from OCLC responded to this year’s survey. This product has been implemented primarily in academic libraries; (graph of WorldShare Management Services implementations by type) most responses to this year’s survey for WMS were from academic libraries, except for 6 special libraries, 1 public libraries, and 2 consortia.

    WorldShare Management Services did not receive enough responses to appear in the large academic library tables. Among mid-sized academic libraries, WMS fell into the middle tier of response ratings. It was rated higher than Ex Libris Alma in two categories, effectiveness for managing print resources (6.67 -- tied with Symphony) and satisfaction for customer support (6.48). Ratings for WMS were a bit down in all categories relative tolat year's survey results.

    Perspective: OCLC WorldShare Management System falls into the library services platform category of products. These products share characteristics such as globally distributed multi-tenant platforms with a single underlying codebase and provide advanced functionality for managing both electronic and print resources. WorldShare Management Services was launched in 2011. Survey results for both WMS and Alma fall into the same general range of moderate scores (6.14 – 7.8), WMS received higher scores across all sizes of academic libraries for print functionality; Alma ranks somewhat higher than WMS in the other categories and for each size group of academic libraries. Both WMS and Alma saw weaker satisfaction scores in all categories compared to last year. Despite many similarities, Alma has gained a dominant market share with WMS holding a much smaller market share. The library services platform category has offered limited options. Until recently WorldShare Management services was positioned as the key competitor to Alma. Now that FOLIO has entered its production phase, more academic libraries are expressing interest in it as they mention migration candidates in their survey responses. For OCLC, it will be important to see if these expressions of interest in FOLIO supplant the position of WMS as the main competitor to Alma.

    The following table presents the 2021 survey results by library type and size

    2021 WorldShare Management Services Responses by Sector
    WorldShare Management ServicesallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS1226.78 457.02296.72106.7010012
    ILSFunctionality1226.89 457.38296.93106.5010012
    PrintFunctionality1217.40 457.53287.86107.0010012
    ElectronicFunctionality1226.52 456.73296.34106.6010012
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport1226.67 457.07296.79106.5010012
    CompanyLoyalty1206.63 457.29296.6696.4410012

    SirsiDynix company profile

    SirsiDynix

    top

    SirsiDynix (view company profile), provides its Symphony, Horizon, and EOS.Web integrated library systems and is developing a set of web-based complementary products delivered through its new BLUEcloud platform. The company saw a new ownership arrangement in December 2014 through its acquisition by ICV Partners from Vista Equity Partners.

    This year 332 libraries using Symphony responded to the survey (2020: 321; 2019: 439; 2018: 473, 2017: 531, 2016: 436, 2015: 436, 2014: 354, 2013: 315, 2012: 380, 2011: 326, 2010: 271, 2009: 304, 2008: 233, 2007: 284). Another 78 libraries using Horizon and 13 using EOS.Web completed responses, for a total of 423 SirsiDynix libraries represented in the survey

    Following the acquisition of SirsiDynix by Vista Equity Partners in 2006, ratings for both Symphony and Horizon dropped for all categories in 2008, but have improved every year since. Looking at this trend demonstrates that while there may be negative fallout following a business event, that a company can work to improve its perceptions over time. The ownership of SirsiDynix changed again in December 2014 with its acquisition by ICV Partners. Survey responses for Symphony and Horizon have continued to show improvement in all categories of the survey in perceptions scores every year since that transition . Ratings for EOS.Web have seen declined from 2017 through 2019, but have substantially improved over the last two years.

    Symphony

    top

    SirsiDynix Symphony (full product report and narrative comments), finds use all types and sizes of libraries and in many throughout international regions.

    Mid-sized academics libraries rated Symphony highest in satisfaction for customer support (7.42), and for print functionality (7.67). Among large public libraries, Symphony received highest ratings for capabilities for managing electronic resources (6.58). In all the other categories, large public libraries gave SirsiDynix penultimate ratings. These ratings show Symphony as quite capable in its abilities to serve the top tier of public libraries.

    15.5 percent of libraries (53 out of 342 responses) indicated consideration of migrating from Symphony. Of those registering interest in changing, 18 were academic libraries. Candidate systems mentioned included Alma (11), WorldShare Management Services (5), Koha (7), Polaris (5), FOLIO (8), and Evergreen (2). 2 mentioned remaining with Symphony among the considerations.

    SirsiDynix Symphony has seen steadily improving ratings in this survey since 2008.

    Perspective: SirsiDynix sites received especially positive marks from public libraries for its management of electronic resources. For these libraries, electronic resources come mostly in the form of ebooks and audiobooks. The capabilities of eResource Central for these resources is well appreciated.

    The way SirsiDynix integrated e-resource content in Enterprise is outstanding. It allows each of our members to have distinct e-resource subscriptions and collections in their catalog instances, while avoiding the headaches of managing MARC records and access in the ILS database. This was one of the most important considerations we made when deciding to remain on Horizon.

    We are very content with Horizon, Enterprise and their various associated and add-on products, in particular Syndetics Unbound and eResource Central. Reporting packages could be easier to use.

    Many of the narrative comments given by libraries using Symphony and Horizon criticized SirsiDynix for not have yet completed development of the BLUEcloud modules. Unfulfilled expectations with the development of BLUEcloud stand out as an issue that may have impeded even higher satisfaction scores for Symphony.

    I would like to note that I wish development of their BlueCloud products was moving at a faster pace. Their cataloging and circulation modules are still not at a point that I can put them into production in our consortia, due to the inability to record key patron information within the BlueCloud interface.

    We are disappointed that the development of the BlueCloud Suite products has been so slow. The current interface and report structure for Symphony is dated and clunky, and when we migrated a while back the product line they were touting was BlueCloud. We understand there are many pressures on the SIRSI company to develop new products and earn revenue from them, but it's important to follow through on developing basic functionality for BlueCloud products.

    It'll be interesting to see what upgrades SirsiDynix will bring with their BlueCloud web modules for all the essential functions of Symphony. Until they are fully developed though, we must continue to use Symphony, which continues to be a fair system but outdated software and has never been as user-friendly as Polaris.

    The Symphony LMS is an excellent consortium product, with extensive functionality and flexibility to suit all consortium member library needs. However, the staff client (Workflows and SymphonyWeb) is outdated, and we are still waiting for the newer BLUEcloud Staff client's functionality to reach parity for day-to-day use in a public library environment.

    There are some basic circulation features that are missing from Sirsi's BLUEcloud suite. For example, policy management hasn't been addressed in BLUEcloud. There is a possibility we would consider open source options in the future if basic features are not addressed by BLUEcloud in the coming years.

    As is with most ILS vendors the support is great. However Symphony infrastructure is old and cranky. I know they've been working on BlueCloud, however that has been going on for years and the product still leaves quite a bit to be desired. Simply not usable by public libraries at this time.

    SirsiDynix has been slow to innovate and open source options, especially where discovery layers are concerned are becoming more attractive to our library consortium. The BLUEcloud products have been in the works for years and still cannot fully meet the needs of our libraries.

    Our library has been a proud SirsiDynix customer since the late 80's but I can't help but think they've failed the academic market. We need all-in-one (functionality AND pricing) solutions like Alma or WMS, not to be nickel and dimed with expensive add-ons such as having to purchase a separate Discovery service, BC Analytics and their Coral-based ERM solutions that are undersupported for their entire client base and too complicated to use. Also--we've been waiting over a decade for the BC web-based functionality, such as BC Circ and Cat, to be comparatively functional with their parallel Symphony and Horizon systems. They've had plenty of time, and my patience is wearing thin. After all this time, it is unlikely we will remain a SirsiDynix customer when we next evaluate systems.

    The following table presents the 2021 survey results by library type and size

    2021 Symphony Responses by Sector
    SymphonyallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS3327.01 356.46117.2795.671197.03567.50117.645257.12
    ILSFunctionality3337.02 356.69117.1896.111197.08567.25117.555267.27
    PrintFunctionality3297.49 357.34117.6496.781177.34557.71118.185257.64
    ElectronicFunctionality3296.01 355.00116.3694.561186.28556.42116.645245.92
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport3267.54 346.94117.6497.671177.38557.87108.305267.85
    CompanyLoyalty3306.93 356.03116.7395.001176.95567.77117.915267.58

    Horizon

    top

    Libraries using Horizon (full product report and narrative comments), continue to show less interest in changing systems, apparently accepting the messaging from SirsiDynix that it will continue to be supported in the long term.

    Horizon, implemented in many types of libraries, is the only legacy system showing decreased numbers in libraries considering migrating to a new system (see selection/deselection report). This year 13 out of 81 (16.1%) responses indicated interest in change, and dramaticly less than in 2008 when 61.5 percent of libraries using Horizon indicated they were shopping for a new system. Of those libraries indicating interest in moving away from Horizon, candidate systems included Symphony (4), Polaris (1), Sierra (0), Alma (4), WorldShare Management Services (4), Koha (3), and FOLIO (8).

    Perspective: For a product that was saved from the brink of discontinuation in 2007, SirsiDynix has made incredible strides with Horizon since recommiting to the product a couple of years later. Satisfaction levels for Horizon track closely with Symphony, showing the same year-by-year trend lines for improvement in all categories.

    The following table presents the 2021 survey results by library type and size

    2021 Horizon Responses by Sector
    HorizonallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS786.74 97.0031247.25256.4867.6711
    ILSFunctionality796.58 96.6731247.08256.4067.1712
    PrintFunctionality787.51 97.7831247.58247.1768.0012
    ElectronicFunctionality775.47 83.6331245.92255.9256.4012
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport777.79 98.4431227.82257.7267.8312
    CompanyLoyalty777.19 98.0031227.45257.1668.0012

    EOS.Web

    top

    EOS.Web (full product report and narrative comments), acquired by SirsiDynix in November 2013, received 13 responses in this year's survey. The product is used mostly by special libraries and does not appear in the statistical summary tables in this report. Out of the 15 responses, 4 indicated interest in changing systems (26.7 percent). The responses from libraries using EOS.Web have been erratic across the annual editions of the survey. Satisfaction scores in all categories were sharply down over those seen in 2017 to 2019, but improved the last two years.

    The following table presents the 2021 survey results by library type and size

    2021 EOS.Web Responses by Sector
    EOS.WeballAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS136.85 20000010
    ILSFunctionality137.08 20000010
    PrintFunctionality137.85 20000010
    ElectronicFunctionality126.00 20000010
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport137.46 20000010
    CompanyLoyalty127.17 10000010

    The Library Corporation company profile

    The Library Corporation

    top

    The Library Corporation (view company profile) working primarily with public libraries, offers the Library.Solution and CARL.X integrated library systems. This year there were 88 responses from libraries using Library.Solution and 25 for libraries using Carl.X.

    Library.Solution

    top

    Library.Solution (full product report and narrative comments), has been implemented primarily in small to mid-sized public libraries and K-12 school districts. School libraries gave Library.Solution its best scores, followed by small public libraries. Mid-sized public libraries gave Library.Solution moderate ratings in most categories. All types of librareis using Library.Solution gave their highest ratings for the company's product support. The lowest scores were given for company loyalty. Across all years of the survey, scores for Library.Solution have been fairly even. This year saw an uptick in support ratings and a slight diminishment of scores in other categories. 17 out of the 90 respnoses (18.9%) indicated interest in migrating to a new product. The Library Corporation has seen generally lowering ratings from 2015 though 2017 with improved satisfaction scores given the last two years. Company loyalty scores are lower than those for the other categories. While libraries using Library.Solution give TLC strong ratings as a company and for support, they do not necessarily affirm loyalty as they consider new products.

    Perspective: Throughout the editions of this survey, libraries have given Library.Solution quite positive ratings, consistently within the range of 6.5 through 7.5. These scores are not always high enough to place in the top place above competing systems. Survey ratings give the company’s customer support excellent scores, as do many of the narrative comments.

    The following table presents the 2021 survey results by library type and size

    2021 Library.Solution Responses by Sector
    Library.SolutionallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS886.97 86.3840467.17116.000177.240
    ILSFunctionality886.89 86.3840467.02115.820177.240
    PrintFunctionality887.27 86.6340467.37116.820177.470
    ElectronicFunctionality876.17 86.0040466.04115.450167.060
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport877.53 87.2540457.40117.820177.820
    CompanyLoyalty866.47 74.7140456.82116.820176.350

    Carl.X

    top

    Carl.X (full product report and narrative comments), is used primarily by large municipal libraries and consortia. With only 25 responses this year, Carl.X does not appear in the statistical tables. Ratings given for Carl.X improved from 2018 through 2022, but were down this year. Libraries using Carl.X gave The Library Corporation thier highest scores for product support (7.17) and lowest for support for electronic resources (5.79).

    The following table presents the 2021 survey results by library type and size

    2021 Carl.X Responses by Sector
    Carl.XallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS256.92 000116.185403
    ILSFunctionality256.56 000116.005403
    PrintFunctionality256.88 000115.915403
    ElectronicFunctionality245.79 000114.825303
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport247.17 000106.505403
    CompanyLoyalty256.48 000115.555403

    Biblionix company profile

    Biblionix

    top

    Biblionix (view company profile) is a small family-owned and managed business based in Austin, TX that focuses entirely on small and mid-sized public libraries and has developed Apollo an entirely web-based ILS deployed through a multi-tenant platform. This year 107 libraries using Apollo responded to the survey, all from public libraries.

    Apollo

    top

    Apollo (full product report and narrative comments), is a Web-based integrated library system implemented only by public libraries with small or mid-sized collections. Apollo was the top performer among small public librariesin most categories: general satisfaction (8.45), overall functionality (8.19), electronic resource management (7.77), customer support (8.55), and company loyalty (8.32). It led the rankings among very small public libraries for every category: general satisfaction (8.62), overall ILS functionality (8.52), print resource management (8.38), electronic resource management (8.14), and It was rated second for company loyalty (8.39). This product has seen consistently positive rankings for all the years it has appeared in the survey. Although small variations are seen from year to year, the satisfaction ratings given to Apollo fall consistently in the 8.0 to 8.8 range. The narrative comments for Apollo were consistently positive.

    Perspective: By focusing on the niche of small public libraries, Biblionix has been able to garner very high levels of satisfaction from the libraries using Apollo. These libraries may find systems developed for larger libraries overly complex and appreciate Apollo’s web-based streamlined functionality. Apollo did not appear in survey results for mid-sized or large public libraries.

    The following table presents the 2021 survey results by library type and size

    2021 Apollo Responses by Sector
    ApolloallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS1078.55 0001048.561000
    ILSFunctionality1078.39 0001048.381000
    PrintFunctionality1068.33 0001038.331000
    ElectronicFunctionality1038.01 0001017.991000
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport1058.44 0001028.431000
    CompanyLoyalty1058.56 0001028.561000

    Book Systems company profile

    Book Systems, Inc.

    top

    Book Systems (view company profile) develops software used primarily in schools and small public libraries, primarily in the United States.

    Atriuum

    This year 90 libraries using Atriuum (full product report and narrative comments), from Book Systems responded to the survey; 81 were from small public libraries and 3 from school libraries. Although a higher proportion of Atriuum installations are in K-12 schools, these libraries tend to be less likely to respond to the survey. Libraries using Atriuum indicated strong loyalty to Book Systems, leading its competitors in this category among very small public libraries; and ranked second in all the other categories. Among small public libraries, Atriuum led in scores for overall ILS functionality (8.39), satisfaction for support (8.26), and placed second in the other categories. The company earned its strongest ratings in customer support (8.38); Since 2011 its scores have fallen consistently in the 7.5 to 8.3 range in all categories, reflecting extremely high levels of satisfaction. There has been minor variation from year to year, with a general trend toward higher scores.

    The following table presents the 2021 survey results by library type and size

    2021 Atriuum Responses by Sector
    AtriuumallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS887.97 000797.962030
    ILSFunctionality887.93 000797.912030
    PrintFunctionality888.13 000798.102030
    ElectronicFunctionality857.11 000777.082030
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport888.15 000798.102030
    CompanyLoyalty888.08 000798.052030

    Civica company profile

    Civica

    top

    Civica operates primarily outside of the United States, with a strong presence in the United Kingdom, Asia, and Australia, and serves mostly public and school libraries.

    Spydus

    top

    This year 26 libraries using Spydus (full product report and narrative comments), from Civica responded to the survey, with most coming from small and mid-sized public libraries and outside the United States. Of the 26 libraries responding, 4 (15.4%) indicated interest in migrating to a new system. Since 2011 ratings for Spydus have been mostly consistent and generally positive in all categories. Ratings have declined somewhat since 2016, but improved over the last two years. Libraries using Spydus gave Civica lower ratings for support than for other categories.

    The relatively low number of responses reduces the confidence that these rankings are representative of the broader community of libraries using Spydus.

    Perspective: Although Spydus is one of the most used systems in Australia and other countries, it has only a handful of implementations in the United States and is underrepresented in this survey. Despite efforts to solicit responses from libraries in all international regions, results are skewed toward the United States and Canada, which means the survey results for products like Spydus may not be indicative of their broader customer base.

    The following table presents the 2021 survey results by library type and size

    2021 Spydus Responses by Sector
    SpydusallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS267.42 100137.6966.83201
    ILSFunctionality267.38 100137.5466.50201
    PrintFunctionality268.12 100138.3167.50201
    ElectronicFunctionality246.46 000136.1566.17101
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport266.12 100136.3865.00201
    CompanyLoyalty257.04 100137.8565.83101

    Follett company profile

    Follett School Solutions

    top

    Follett ranks as the leading provider of technology products for school libraries, with over 80 percent of the public school libraries in the United States using its Destiny products (chart of implementations by library type). OPALS holds a much smaller portion of the market share in the school library sector compared to Destiny, though libraries running OPALS respond enthusiastically to this survey.

    In September 2021, Follett School Solutions was divested from Follett Corporantion and acquired by Francisco Parnters.

    Destiny

    top

    Follett has developed its Destiny ILS primarily for the PreK-12 school library sector, though it is also used in small public libraries. This year 65 libraries using Destiny responded to the survey, with 45 from schools, 10 from small public libraries, and 3 from small academic libraries. (full product report and narrative comments).

    School libraries rated Destiny higher than did public or academic libraries. That is an expected outcome since Destiny has been designed for K-12 schools and its use in public libraries is more incidental, due mostly to its low cost per library. Some public libraries also share an ILS implementation with thier school district.

    The general ILS satisfaction rating for school libraries was 7.46 and 7.10 for public libraries. Destiny was given its highest ratings for management of print resources (7.98) and customer support (7.72). Responses for Destiny have been quite consistent through each edition of the survey since 2015.

    Perspective: The response rates from school libraries have been disproportionately low for the survey. School librarians face many challenges and have proven to be difficult to reach. In some years, Follett has helped promote the survey to its users, such as in 2016 when 621 responses were received for libraries using Destiny. The satisfaction scores for that year with a large number of responses were consistent with subsequent years with smaller response rates. This observation helps strengthen confidence that survey ratings are representative of the broader customer base even with a smaller sample.

    The following table presents the 2021 survey results by library type and size

    2021 Destiny Responses by Sector
    DestinyallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS657.40 300107.1000487.461
    ILSFunctionality657.31 300106.9000487.441
    PrintFunctionality647.89 300107.5000477.981
    ElectronicFunctionality636.32 300105.2000466.701
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport647.72 300107.7000477.911
    CompanyLoyalty637.56 300107.0000467.761

    OPALS logo

    OPALS

    top

    The open source OPALS ILS (full product report and narrative comments) implemented primarily in school libraries (chart of implementations by library type), received its usual enthusiastic response, with 252 libraries using OPALS completing the survey. OPALS was developed and supported by Media Flex, Inc. (view company profile). Many libraries using OPALS receive support services from their district rather than from Media Flex directly. In the state of New York, many of the BOCES provide OPALS for the school libraries they support. This year, 194 responses for OPALS came from school libraries, 8 from consortia, 7 from small public libraries, and 30 from small academic libraries.

    OPALS received top ratings in all categories by libraries serving PreK-12 Schools: Overall satisfaction (8.90), ILS functionality (8.79), print functionality (8.93), electronic resource functionality (8.10), and company loyalty (8.76). OPALS also received top ratings in all categories for small academic libraries, though the number of responses was smaller than those from other products. Looking at responses across all library groups, OPALS received somewhat weaker scores for its capabilities for managing electronic resources (7.92). This was the only question where the mode and median scores was 8, compared to 9 for all other questions. About 50 responses did not provide a response for this question, indicating that these libraries do not use OPALS for managing thier electronic resources.

    Perspective: Libraries using OPALS are enthusiastic responders to this survey, both in terms of the number of responses and in the stellar satisfaction scores given. Libraries using OPALS seem truly delighted with the product and with the support they receive. It is difficult to interpret results that give highest scores to every survey question without differentiation. The only question that OPALS responders treated differently was the one addressing capabilities for addressing electronic resources.

    The following table presents the 2021 survey results by library type and size

    2021 OPALS Responses by Sector
    OPALSallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS2528.85 218.67205001378.90118.91
    ILSFunctionality2518.71 218.52205001378.79118.91
    PrintFunctionality2518.90 218.76205001378.93118.73
    ElectronicFunctionality2047.92 197.37203001218.1098.00
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport2508.76 218.29205001378.80118.82
    CompanyLoyalty2488.71 208.40205001358.76118.73

    Open Source Products

    Open Source products make up a routine aspect of the library technology industry. Although this report gathers them together into a separate section, open source products compete on their own merits among the proprietary offerings. The products covered include Koha, used by all types of libraries and in all global regions, Evergreen, used by consortia of public libraries in the United States and Canada, and FOLIO, a library services platform developed primarily for academic libraries that is now in its early implementation phase.

    Most implementations of open source library management products rely on commercial support arrangements. The satisfaction that a library might experience will be determined both by the capabilities of the software and by the service provider. The survey measures the satisfaction across all implementations of an open source product and for each service provider, for example: Koha – ByWater Solutions or FOLIO – EBSCO Information Services.

    Spanning responses across all open source products, many libraries offer comments of considerable satisfaction.

    We have open source. Love the price.

    Our library is very happy using the Evergreen open source ILS. After not being able to sustain the cost of the Sirsi Dynix system we previously had and then going through a short term use of the Populi Library system (free at that time) it was heartening to find a reliable ILS at an affordable rate .

    Regarding Open Source Considerations: we are already on an Open Source ILS and are satisfied with the experience.

    We are happy with FOLIO so far, but there's some basic functionality that's missing that we hope will be rolled out in future versions. On the flip side, it's saving us a lot of money on an LSP due to the economic model that EBSCO is using: you only pay for what you need in FOLIO.

    We are ideologically committed to open-source software and use it for our ILS, IR, and website. We are stuck with ByWater and Koha not necessarily because they're the best choice, but primarily because they're the _only_ choice in this space. I'd love to see a genuine competitor emerge

    We already use an open source ILS (Koha). Super satisfied with it!

    The narrative comments reflect an ongoing perception that implementing open source products requires more staffing than proprietary products:

    Main concern with Open Source ILS (Koha being the most popular) is a lack of knowledge and familiarity about working with Linux OS.

    With our staffing, we can only consider fully-supported open source solutions with annual or longer support contracts. We believe open source products with support contracts are likely to allow the library more capabilities than the same expense with a proprietary vendor.

    In general, I like open source as a concept. However, we do not currently have the necessary staffing expertise to set-up and maintain an open source product.

    Although Library staff might be open to the possibility of an open source system, council preferences and guidelines would likely prevent this being an option.

    While interest in an open source ILS and Discovery Services exists we do not have enough staffing to support the use of open source products this early in their development.

    We simply don't have the IT staff available to consider an open source ILS and our consortium does not seem to want to look at that option.

    Consider, yes, but we probably do not have adequate staffing to implement. I'd love to move to open source though.

    Open Source attractive intellectually, but pragmatically we need strong vendor support having a tiny technical team in an under-resourced smallish remote/regional university.

    One of the difficulties to implement an open source ILS will be the lacking of in-house expertise.

    As a federal academic library, we are not permitted to use open source products, so we cannot consider implementation of an open-source ILS.

    The capacity to support open source is dependent upon having internal IT staff which is not the trend in Academic Libraries in my region. Larger scale and budget with higher associated risks are a factor in preference for commercial well support systems

    We may seriously consider an open source platform in the future, however, other considerations, including lack of staffing prevent that now.

    Our IT department doesn't consider open source and after the [...] experimentation with Linux it would be virtually impossible.

    We wouldn't consider implementing an open source ILS because we understand the amount of work involved in maintaining an open source system. See we already maintain oss for our repository and discovery layer we aren't willing to do the work for an ILS as well.

    I have a very strong preference for Open Source and would advocate to implement either Koha or Evergreen if we weren't part of a consortium that shares an ILS and Discovery Layer. We get huge benefits from being a member of this consortium, so dropping out over our shared ILS wouldn't really be reasonable. So while I regularly contemplate and consider how great it would be to implement an Open Source Solution for our ILS and Discovery layer, it's very unlikely that would happen in the near future.

    we do not have a library IT team to help with open source initiatives

    Interested in FOLIO, but we do not have the local resources to implement an open-source ILS.

    We don't have staff to manage an open ILS at this time.

    Open source would be nice if we had the staff to implement

    Open source still requires expertise and monitoring, and we do not have the staff or the knowledge to participate in cooperative development of a product.

    Open source/LINUX was a disaster. Too difficult with LINUX. No time to learn SQL. Very difficult to manage. Crashed a lot.

    At this point I wouldn't consider open source, as the library and IT staffing levels cannot accommodate a project of this size.

    We do not have enough IT support available to consider open source.

    Don't have staff or skills to maintain open source but have heard great things about Koha from small Libraries

    Developing an open source ILS would involve significant staff time and given our limited staff and the technology responsibilities that they have, this would not be possible for us in the next several years.

    We would need a library systems office in order to implement an open source ILS/Discovery product

    We do not now nor anticipate having in the future the technical staff to implement, administer, and maintain an open source ILS/LSP or discovery service.

    Our system would struggle with staffing to support an open source ILS.

    In my experience, open source is a hassle and a headache, especially if you are already short staffed. To add to that we are having a very hard time filling our Technical Services/Electronic Resources/Resource Sharing open position. So going open source is completely out of the question.

    We have a small staff, so we would need to carefully consider whether or not we could devote the hours necessary to run an open-source system properly. We did consider such a system when we migrated to our current system but found that staying with a known vendor was more economical overall.

    In general, I like open source as a concept. However, we do not currently have the necessary staffing expertise to set-up and maintain an open source product.

    These comments provide insight into some of the perceived barriers that libraries are concernd with as they consider open source automation systems.

    Koha logo

    Koha

    top

    Support providerResponsesGeneral Satisfaction
    All Installations2127.85
    ByWater Solutions1407.94
    Independent167.88
    LibLime66.0
    Equinox486.94
    Interleaf Technology96.78
    PTFS Europe127.83

    Koha (full product report and narrative comments), an open source integrated library system has been implemented by libraries of all types and in all parts of the world.

    As an open source ILS, Koha can be downloaded and installed by libraries on their own, though many contract for installation, support, or hosting from commercial or non-profit support organizations. Those implementing Koha on their own are designated "Koha -- Independent" and others are qualified by the name of the support firm. The following table summarizes the number of libraries using Koha, their support arrangement, the number responses, and the general product support rating. Those with fewer than 6 responses fall below the threshold of performing the statistical calculations. This year 212 libraries using Koha responded to the survey.

    When aggregating response scores across all support arrangements, ratings given to Koha have been generally rising since 2011. Scores across all Koha implementations were lower 2008 and 2009 than previous or subsequent years, due primarily to the low ratings from libraries using LibLime Koha, which had a strong presence in the US at that time. Since 2010 satisfaction scores given for all support arrangements for the community-supported Koha have steadily increased. Responses this year continued this trend of improved satisfaction.

    The following table presents the 2021 survey results by library type and size

    2021 Koha Responses by Sector
    KohaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS2127.85 447.68137.382728.03137.921467.50
    ILSFunctionality2127.66 447.57137.232727.76138.001467.17
    PrintFunctionality2108.06 447.95137.462708.16138.231468.00
    ElectronicFunctionality2026.39 426.21135.152716.85126.501465.50
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport2057.95 427.69137.772718.32138.151466.50
    CompanyLoyalty2057.88 427.83137.232708.07137.771467.67

    ByWater Solutions company profile

    ByWater Solutions

    top

    Koha supported by ByWater Solutions (full product report and narrative comments), (view company profile) offers support services for Koha, with most of its client libraries located in the United States. ByWater serves many different types of libraries (see charts for library type and library size). This year’s breakdown of the 140 responses included 79 public libraries, 23 academics, 6 consortia, and 3 schools.

    ByWater Solutions receives quite positive satisfaction scores despite its challenges of supporting a rapidly growing customer base of diverse types of libraries. Its clients increasingly include larger institutions which tend to be less likely to give highly positive ratings.

    ByWater Solutions earned highest scores among mid-sized public libraries in all categories, as it also did last year: overall satisfaction (7.82), general ILS functionality (7.64), print functionality (8.32), effectiveness for electronic resources (7.00), satisfaction with customer support (8.41), and company loyalty (7.91). ByWater Solutions also received strong ratings among small public libraries and small academic libraries.

    When comparing rankings across the multiple years of the survey, ByWater saw diminishing satisfaction from 2010 through 2014, with a gradual improvement since that year. Libraries contracting with ByWater Solutions gave higher ratings for support than other categories. The narrative comments given were overwhelmingly positive.

    The following table presents the 2021 survey results by library type and size

    2021 Koha -- ByWater Solutions Responses by Sector
    Koha -- ByWater SolutionsallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS1407.94 257.6077.710678.01118.001467.50
    ILSFunctionality1407.70 257.5277.290677.75118.001467.17
    PrintFunctionality1388.06 257.9677.860658.14118.181468.00
    ElectronicFunctionality1356.47 245.5874.570666.82117.091465.50
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport1388.14 257.8878.290668.32118.091466.50
    CompanyLoyalty1378.04 247.8378.140658.08117.641467.67

    Evergreen

    top

    Evergreen, (full product report and narrative comments). an open source ILS implemented primarily in consortia of public libraries received 107 survey responses this year. Of these responses, 85 were from public libraries, 9 from academics, and 9 from consortia. (see charts for library type and library size).

    The satisfaction ratings given from libraries using Evergreen have steadily improved since 2012, though there have been some dips along the way. This year's ratings were a bit down compared to last year. These libraries give higher scores for support than other categories (7.67). Satisfaction with Evergreen's capabilities for managing electronic resources was the lowest (6.01) Among small public libraries, Evergreen received the higher ratings for its print functionality (7.50) than for functionality for electronic resources (5.97).

    Libraries using Evergreen rely an a variety of support arrangements. This year, 90 responses were from libraries working with Equinox Software for hosting and support services, 22 were from self-supported consortia, and 11 from consortia contracting with MOBIUS for hosting and support.

    The following table presents the 2021 survey results by library type and size

    2021 Evergreen Responses by Sector
    EvergreenallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS907.37 500657.1867.830098.22
    ILSFunctionality907.37 500657.2967.670098.00
    PrintFunctionality897.61 500647.5068.330097.78
    ElectronicFunctionality886.01 500645.9765.670096.56
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport887.67 500647.5968.000088.13
    CompanyLoyalty856.94 500616.6267.500088.38

    Evergreen -- Equinox

    top

    Evergreen supported by Equinox Open Software Initiative (full product report and narrative comments), (view company profile) offers support services for Evergreen, Koha, and other open source products.

    The satisfaction scores for Evergreen as supported by Equinox Open Software Initiative seem quite erratic. Scores given last year represented an all-time peak, with a dramatic drop this year. The lowest scores were given for company loyalty. Four out of 49 responses (8.16%) indicated interest in changing systems or support providers.

    2021 Evergreen -- Equinox Responses by Sector
    Evergreen -- EquinoxallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS486.94 200386.633003
    ILSFunctionality487.02 200386.823003
    PrintFunctionality477.51 200377.383003
    ElectronicFunctionality476.15 200376.083003
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport487.35 200387.163003
    CompanyLoyalty476.32 200375.893003

    FOLIO

    top

    FOLIO logo

    FOLIO is an open source initiative to create a new library services platform with financial backing from EBSCO Information Systems (vendor profile) with initial development contracted to Index Data, and with the Open Library Environment providing community engagement and educational activities. See FOLIO Crosses New Thresholds published by ALA TechSource for further information on FOLIO.

    FOLIO, following a four-year phase of development, saw production implementations beginning in 2019, with additional libraries moving into productin in 2020 and so far in 2021. Although some of these early implementors responded to the survey, the numbers of responses are not yet large enough to fit into the response tables. As larger number of libraries have implemented FOLIO its satisfaction levels can be compared with other products. Until that time, the results of this survey provide some indicators for the level of interest for FOLIO. Of libraries indicating interest in moving to a new automation system, 86 mentioned FOLIO as a candidate. FOLIO was mentioned in 30 narrative comments.

    2021 FOLIO Responses by Sector
    FOLIOallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    SatisfactionLevelILS136.23 25300001
    ILSFunctionality135.92 25300001
    PrintFunctionality136.69 25300001
    ElectronicFunctionality137.08 25300001
    SatisfactionCustomerSupport136.69 25300001
    CompanyLoyalty136.69 25300001

    top

    Academic Discovery

    View the narrative comments given by responders
    about discovery services

    This year’s survey included a section on academic discovery services. This section focused on index-based discovery services, including Primo and Summon from Ex Libris, EBSCO Discovery Service, and WorldCat Discovery Service from OCLC. Each of these products is based on a large-scale index that addresses the general body of scholarly literature, including individual articles, book chapters, and other items.

    Many libraries use a different discovery interface than the one provided through the index-based product. Each of the index-based discovery service offers an API that enables their use through third-party interfaces. It’s common, for example, to implement VuFind or Blacklight as the patron interface and use the index from Primo or EBSCO Discovery Service. Encore Duet is a product that combines the Innovative’s Encore interface with the index from EBSCO Discovery Service. This survey focused on the index-based product and not the user interface employed. The vast majority of implementations are based on the interface packaged with the index-based product.

    The Ex Libris Central Discovery Index powers both Primo and Summon. The user interface style and features for Primo and Summon differ substantially. Ex Libris also offers Primo VE, a version of the product that is deeply integrated with Alma. Although Primo VE has some differences, this survey does not differentiate between Primo and Primo VE.

    Although some other types of libraries responded, the results were limited to those from academic libraries. Primo received 266 responses, EBSCO Discovery Service received 182, WorldCat Discovery Service received 92, and Summon received 59, for a total of 636.

    One set of questions addressed the effectiveness of the discovery service for different types of users, including undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty members. Though the differences in scores among the results was miniscule, EBSCO Discovery Service rated higher for each of these user types. Primo rated higher than summon for graduate students and faculty, Summon was a rated a bit higher for undergraduates. WorldCat Discovery Service was rated slightly better than Primo or Summon for faculty members.

    Another question asked about how well each product covered the library’s collections of resources. Again, the differences were miniscule, with average scores ranging from 6.98 to 6.77. EBSCO Discovery Service received the best score (6.98). Interestingly Summon (6.90) was rated higher than Primo (6.77), even though both are based on the same Central Discovery Index. WorldCat Discovery Service placed in between (6.87).

    Libraries expect discovery services to be objective, without bias toward the content of any publisher or provider. The question that addressed this topic saw a bit more differentiation. OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service was rated most objective (7.32), followed by Summon (6.55), Primo (6.32), and EBSCO Discovery Service (6.18).

    The survey also explored interest and use of the Open Discovery Initiative. When asked about the importance of ODI, libraries using Primo (5.81) and Summon (5.53) expressed the highest interest, followed by EBSCO Discovery Service (5.33). Libraries using OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service showed the lowest interest in ODI (4.71).

    Only a small portion of libraries used the ODI as they considered the selection of their discovery service. Libraries using Primo indicated the highest level of use (13.4%), followed by Summon (10.1%) and WorldCat Discovery Service (8.5%); of those using EBSCO Discovery Service, 8% considered the ODI.

    The following comments mentioned the Open Discovery Initiative:

    Ideologically, ODI is a great initiative, and I'm sure all libraries agree with its stated mission. That said, why are representatives from EBSCO and ProQuest on the committee when the companies do not share metadata with each other? It's kafkaesque that the very companies flaunting the ODI guidelines also define them. I'm pessimistic about any progress being made given this situation.

    I am not very familiar or yet informed about the NISO Open Discovery Initiative

    Was not aware of NISO ODI would have been useful to review

    I was not familiar with the NISO Open Discovery Initiative, but I've looked it up and find it very interesting. Will need to do some more reading before I can answer the next question about importance.

    I have no knowledge of NISO Open Discovery Initiative. We have no undergraduate program

    I do not know what the NISO Open Discovery Iniative is.

    How would you rate the importance of the NISO Open Discovery Initiative? Don't know much about it.

    Not familiar with Niso Open Discovery initiative.

    I'm going to look up NISO Open Discovery Initiative.

    We do not have the staff talent to properly manage EDS and that is part of dissatisfaction with it. I know nothing about NISO Open Discovery.

    We do not have information on the NISO Open Discovery Initiative at this time in order to offer a rating the importance of it. Therefore, I entered "5" to be in the middle.

    I am not aware of the NISO Open Discovery Initiative to provide an accurate rating.

    We do not have a lot of information about the NISO Open Discovery Initiative.

    We don't have graduate students. I don't know what the NISO Open Discovery Initiative is.

    This comment is about your last question about the NISO Open Discovery Initiative. I don't know anything about the initiative, and today was the first day I Googled the initiative. If I knew more about the NISO Open Discovery Initiative, I would have given it a rating higher than zero.

    With regard to the question about objectivity across publishers, the fight between ProQuest and EBSCO is long-standing and well-known. They won’t share their secrets with each other, so EBSCO resources don’t work as well in ProQuest products and vice versa.

    Effectiveness for Undergraduates

    Statistics related to the question: Discovery Effectiveness for Undergraduates (Library Type: Academic) (2021)

    Discovery Effectiveness for Undergraduates Response Distribution Statistics
    Discovery ServiceResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    EBSCO Discovery Service182 1 2 4 12 27 57 63 16 87.107 0.44
    Summon59 1 4 7 25 17 5 77.087 0.91
    Primo266 2 3 7 8 17 34 100 77 18 76.877 0.43
    WorldCat Discovery Service92 1 2 1 13 21 21 27 6 86.737 0.52
    All Responses636 3 4 3 11 15 48 95 217 189 51 76.927 0.28

    Effectiveness for Graduate Students

    Statistics related to the question: Discovery Effectiveness for Graduate Students (Library Type: Academic) (2021)

    Discovery Effectiveness for Graduate Students Response Distribution Statistics
    Discovery ServiceResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    EBSCO Discovery Service162 3 2 3 2 15 24 54 47 12 76.807 0.47
    Primo230 2 2 3 6 4 22 37 87 53 14 76.677 0.46
    Summon52 1 2 7 13 19 8 2 76.527 0.69
    WorldCat Discovery Service86 1 1 1 4 15 12 30 15 7 76.517 0.54
    All Responses566 10 3 5 11 15 64 94 196 128 40 76.627 0.29

    Effectiveness for Faculty Members

    Statistics related to the question: Discovery Effectiveness for Faculty Members (Library Type: Academic) (2021)

    Discovery Effectiveness for Faculty Members Response Distribution Statistics
    Discovery ServiceResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    EBSCO Discovery Service184 1 2 4 5 12 36 56 54 14 76.867 0.44
    WorldCat Discovery Service93 1 4 18 13 32 18 7 76.627 0.52
    Primo264 2 3 11 11 28 42 97 57 13 76.557 0.43
    Summon59 1 1 3 9 16 21 6 2 76.296 0.39
    All Responses638 2 4 8 16 25 72 114 215 141 41 76.617 0.24

    Coverage of library resources

    Statistics related to the question: Coverage of library resources (Library Type: Academic) (2021)

    Coverage of library resources Response Distribution Statistics
    Discovery ServiceResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    EBSCO Discovery Service180 3 2 2 9 36 65 46 17 76.987 0.45
    Summon60 1 3 5 9 19 19 4 76.907 0.52
    WorldCat Discovery Service93 1 1 1 3 7 16 30 26 8 76.877 0.62
    Primo267 3 2 5 8 25 39 105 60 20 76.777 0.43
    All Responses638 2 5 9 10 16 50 103 232 156 55 76.827 0.28

    Objectivity of Discovery Services

    Statistics related to the question: Objectivity of the Discovery Service (Library Type: Academic) (2021)

    Objectivity of the Discovery Service Response Distribution Statistics
    Discovery ServiceResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    WorldCat Discovery Service93 1 3 11 6 21 29 22 87.328 0.83
    Summon58 3 10 8 24 12 1 76.557 0.39
    Primo259 2 5 6 8 8 46 44 76 39 25 76.327 0.43
    EBSCO Discovery Service179 1 2 7 8 12 23 34 50 29 13 76.187 0.52
    All Responses625 6 8 13 22 23 97 94 178 116 68 76.447 0.32

    Importance of Open Discovery Initiative

    Statistics related to the question: Importance of Open Discovery Initiative (2021)

    Importance of Open Discovery Initiative Response Distribution Statistics
    Discovery ServiceResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Primo268 18 5 9 9 20 46 28 62 43 28 75.816 0.49
    Summon59 7 2 3 13 8 13 11 2 55.536 0.65
    EBSCO Discovery Service193 24 3 1 11 8 49 28 26 23 20 55.336 0.00
    WorldCat Discovery Service89 10 3 2 2 16 28 7 12 5 4 54.715 0.74
    All Responses675 66 11 17 29 56 147 80 120 90 59 55.436 0.19

    Open Discovery Initiative

    Used Open Discovery Initiative for Discovery Selection
    Discovery ServiceTotal ResponsesUsed ODIpercent
    EBSCO Discovery Service286 238.04%
    Primo352 4713.35%
    Summon79 810.13%
    WorldCat Discovery Service128 118.59%
    All Responses1,065 979.11%

    EBSCO Discovery Service Statistics

    2021 EBSCO Discovery Service Responses by Sector
    EBSCO Discovery ServiceallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    UndergradDiscovery2486.95 977.07547.22276.9646.251057.004
    GraduateDiscovery2256.67 796.78526.98286.6446.251037.673
    FacultyDiscovery2556.75 987.05546.93286.1847.001057.204
    DiscoveryCoverage2546.92 966.91527.21286.7547.751066.504
    DiscoveryObjectivity2506.11 956.11536.45275.7847.501046.004
    ODIimportance1935.33 685.62455.89235.7424.501033.333

    Primo

    2021 Primo Responses by Sector
    PrimoallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    UndergradDiscovery3376.86 896.44957.15707.070100146.71
    GraduateDiscovery3006.65 596.29906.96706.690100136.46
    FacultyDiscovery3396.54 876.39956.78706.440100146.43
    DiscoveryCoverage3476.80 876.41987.04706.900100146.57
    DiscoveryObjectivity3366.40 865.97956.47666.650100146.64
    ODIimportance2685.81 625.11736.05586.400100135.85

    Summon

    2021 Summon Responses by Sector
    SummonallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    UndergradDiscovery737.14 206.90187.11187.3300001
    GraduateDiscovery696.71 176.76166.50166.2500001
    FacultyDiscovery766.43 206.70186.33185.7800001
    DiscoveryCoverage786.94 217.00186.67187.0600001
    DiscoveryObjectivity746.49 206.85176.35186.5000001
    ODIimportance595.53 144.57146.14166.0600000

    WorldCat Discovery Service

    2021 WorldCat Discovery Service Responses by Sector
    WorldCat Discovery ServiceallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
    smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
    navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
    UndergradDiscovery1216.58 466.96326.78106.1032012
    GraduateDiscovery1166.46 446.98296.2895.6732012
    FacultyDiscovery1236.54 486.94316.55106.0032012
    DiscoveryCoverage1246.77 477.09326.66107.2032012
    DiscoveryObjectivity1237.20 477.43327.50106.9022012
    ODIimportance894.71 324.69255.2064.8322012


    Selected Statistical Tables

    Emphasis on Peer Groups

    top

    Public, academic, school, and special libraries each have distinct expectations for their automation products. Previous editions of survey report presented results in comprehensive tables that aggregate results given across all types and sizes of libraries. With the increased number of responses, combined with the enrichment of survey responses with demographic data from each responding library from its entry in the libraries.org directory, for the last three years the results have been presented primarily within peer groups. Separate tables are included for the key areas of ILS satisfaction and functionality completeness for public, academic, and school libraries and according to collection size categories.

    Tables assembled according to peer groups provide a more fair set comparisons as libraries consider the best products and providers to meet their future automation needs.

    This approach enables libraries to make more balanced comparisons and interpretations of the results. Presenting results through amalgamated tables gives a false impression that the products that serve very small libraries perform at a higher level than more sophisticated products designed to serve larger and more complex automation scenarios. Stronger and weaker products emerge more clearly when presented within tables organized by library type and collection size. Examples of the category combination tables are presented below. The interactive version of the survey results dynamically assembles statistical result tables according to any combination of report category, library type, collection size, and country.

    Public Libraries

    top

    Large Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2021)

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2021)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Polaris15 6 6 3 77.808 2.32
    Symphony27 1 1 3 6 9 7 87.448 0.38
    Sierra24 1 1 1 2 5 11 1 2 76.337 1.22
    All Responses97 3 1 3 4 9 34 25 18 77.167 0.71

    Large Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2021)

    ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Polaris15 2 7 4 2 77.407 1.81
    Symphony27 1 2 2 9 9 4 77.227 0.38
    Sierra24 2 2 6 11 1 2 76.547 1.43
    All Responses97 2 1 3 6 13 39 20 13 76.987 0.61

    Large Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2016)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2021)

    Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Polaris15 3 8 4 88.078 2.32
    Symphony26 2 1 4 12 7 87.818 0.98
    Sierra22 3 4 11 2 2 76.827 1.28
    All Responses94 1 1 6 5 27 33 21 87.548 0.72

    Large Public Libraries: effectiveness for electronic resources (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2021)

    Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Symphony26 1 1 1 6 3 3 6 5 56.587 0.39
    Polaris15 1 1 3 8 1 1 76.207 1.81
    Sierra23 3 1 3 3 6 2 3 2 54.575 1.46
    All Responses92 1 3 3 6 5 18 13 17 16 10 56.006 0.31

    Large Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2021)

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2020)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Polaris24 1 2 2 3 6 10 97.678 1.63
    Symphony29 2 1 5 12 9 87.668 1.49
    Horizon12 1 1 1 5 4 87.508 2.02
    Sierra20 2 2 1 1 7 3 3 1 65.656 1.34
    All Responses109 2 3 5 2 4 12 15 32 34 97.258 0.86

    Large Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2021)

    Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Polaris15 1 3 6 5 87.938 2.32
    Symphony27 1 2 5 9 10 97.708 0.19
    Sierra24 2 1 1 5 3 6 3 3 75.967 1.02
    All Responses96 3 1 2 2 1 9 3 19 28 28 87.168 0.82

    Medium-sized Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2021)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions22 1 5 13 3 87.828 1.49
    Polaris61 2 1 7 19 25 7 87.368 0.90
    Symphony85 1 1 1 4 7 30 26 15 77.297 0.65
    Horizon32 3 2 5 8 10 4 86.917 1.41
    Library.Solution29 4 3 9 10 3 86.767 1.11
    Sierra49 2 2 2 10 17 11 5 76.737 0.57
    All Responses344 3 5 8 3 11 39 111 114 50 87.197 0.27

    Medium-sized Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2021)

    ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions22 3 6 9 4 87.648 1.28
    Polaris61 2 7 19 26 7 87.418 0.77
    Symphony85 1 1 2 6 3 36 25 11 77.187 0.54
    Sierra49 1 2 4 8 12 18 4 86.827 1.00
    Horizon32 1 2 2 6 10 9 2 76.787 1.41
    Library.Solution29 1 3 4 9 9 3 76.667 1.11
    All Responses344 2 3 3 5 5 13 41 112 119 41 87.157 0.27

    Medium-sized Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2021)

    Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions22 2 9 11 98.329 1.71
    Polaris60 2 1 1 16 28 12 87.728 1.03
    Symphony84 1 1 1 1 6 21 34 19 87.618 0.65
    Sierra49 1 1 1 2 13 18 13 87.578 1.29
    Horizon31 3 1 1 7 13 6 87.428 1.44
    Library.Solution29 2 1 1 5 13 7 87.348 1.67
    All Responses341 2 1 3 4 8 4 15 76 139 89 87.648 0.32

    Medium-sized Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2021)

    Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions22 1 4 2 5 6 4 87.007 1.07
    Symphony84 2 2 1 5 5 7 11 23 18 10 76.377 0.11
    Polaris58 2 2 1 6 10 11 10 11 5 66.076 0.79
    Library.Solution29 1 1 2 1 1 4 4 5 6 4 86.037 1.30
    Horizon32 1 4 2 3 7 9 4 2 76.006 1.24
    Sierra48 2 3 1 4 12 9 8 7 2 55.606 0.43
    All Responses338 9 5 9 15 23 49 59 74 61 34 76.137 0.33

    Medium-sized Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2021)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions22 3 7 12 98.419 1.49
    Horizon31 1 1 2 3 13 11 87.908 1.62
    Symphony84 1 1 1 4 6 14 27 30 97.708 0.55
    Library.Solution29 2 3 5 5 14 97.698 1.11
    Polaris61 1 1 3 2 12 17 17 8 76.987 0.51
    Sierra47 1 1 1 1 2 5 11 6 12 7 86.517 0.15
    All Responses339 2 1 5 4 11 19 36 60 95 106 97.418 0.22

    Medium-sized Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2021)

    Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions22 1 1 1 7 12 97.919 1.71
    Horizon31 1 2 1 3 4 12 8 87.428 1.44
    Symphony84 3 3 2 7 2 15 28 24 87.258 0.55
    Polaris60 1 1 1 3 4 9 12 17 12 86.987 0.77
    Library.Solution28 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 12 96.758 0.00
    Sierra49 2 1 3 5 12 11 9 6 66.437 0.57
    All Responses338 10 1 2 9 14 19 38 58 94 93 87.128 0.22

    Small Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2021)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo31 4 9 18 98.459 1.44
    Atriuum31 5 3 9 14 98.038 1.44
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions23 6 11 6 88.008 1.46
    Polaris47 1 3 4 15 10 14 77.538 1.31
    VERSO32 3 1 2 6 14 6 87.318 1.59
    Library.Solution24 1 1 1 1 6 8 6 87.218 1.63
    Symphony48 1 1 8 3 15 11 9 77.047 1.15
    Sierra19 1 1 1 3 7 5 1 76.637 0.92
    Evergreen -- Equinox22 1 2 4 1 8 3 3 76.557 1.49
    All Responses331 1 1 3 7 7 19 22 86 97 88 87.418 0.27

    Small Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2021)

    ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo31 2 3 13 13 88.198 1.26
    Atriuum31 3 6 9 13 98.038 1.44
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions23 10 11 2 87.658 1.46
    Polaris47 1 2 5 14 10 15 97.558 1.31
    VERSO32 2 1 2 2 9 11 5 87.138 1.59
    Symphony48 1 1 7 4 12 16 7 87.107 1.15
    Library.Solution24 1 1 2 4 3 9 4 87.048 1.22
    Sierra19 1 1 3 1 5 7 1 86.687 0.92
    Evergreen -- Equinox22 2 5 3 4 6 2 86.597 1.71
    All Responses331 3 6 7 24 30 80 106 75 87.368 0.27

    Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2021)

    Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Atriuum31 1 3 10 17 98.399 1.44
    Apollo31 1 4 9 17 98.239 0.36
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions23 4 10 9 88.228 1.46
    Polaris45 2 2 10 13 18 97.968 1.34
    VERSO32 2 1 4 3 12 10 87.568 1.59
    Symphony47 1 6 5 9 16 10 87.348 1.17
    Library.Solution24 1 1 1 2 3 12 4 87.258 1.63
    Evergreen -- Equinox21 3 4 8 1 5 77.057 1.53
    Sierra19 1 2 6 6 3 1 66.587 0.92
    All Responses327 1 1 4 3 18 27 63 105 105 87.668 0.33

    Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2021)

    Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo31 1 1 3 6 4 16 97.779 0.72
    Atriuum30 1 1 3 4 1 2 5 13 97.038 0.91
    VERSO27 3 4 5 8 6 1 76.377 0.96
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions23 2 1 2 4 6 5 3 76.267 1.46
    Library.Solution24 2 2 3 4 3 5 5 86.217 0.41
    Symphony48 3 1 1 2 10 8 8 10 5 56.006 0.87
    Polaris45 1 2 3 7 2 6 13 7 4 76.007 0.60
    Evergreen -- Equinox22 1 2 1 4 3 8 2 1 75.867 1.49
    Sierra19 2 4 5 3 2 2 1 44.634 0.92
    All Responses323 12 5 10 17 24 42 42 63 53 55 76.177 0.33

    Small Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2021)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Atriuum31 1 1 3 8 18 98.269 1.62
    Apollo30 1 1 2 11 15 98.239 1.10
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions23 1 4 7 11 98.228 1.88
    VERSO32 1 2 7 8 14 97.948 1.59
    Symphony46 1 2 5 1 10 11 16 97.438 1.33
    Library.Solution23 1 1 1 1 4 7 8 97.308 1.46
    Polaris42 1 2 5 4 7 12 11 87.248 1.39
    Evergreen -- Equinox22 1 1 3 2 7 2 6 76.917 1.49
    Sierra19 1 1 5 1 5 4 2 56.477 0.92
    All Responses321 2 3 1 6 9 22 19 61 78 120 97.528 0.39

    Small Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2021)

    Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo31 1 2 8 20 98.399 1.62
    Atriuum31 2 6 4 19 98.299 1.26
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions22 1 1 3 6 11 98.059 1.07
    VERSO32 1 1 1 1 2 8 7 11 97.388 1.59
    Symphony47 1 3 5 3 13 10 12 77.157 1.31
    Polaris47 1 3 2 5 3 10 7 16 97.067 1.31
    Library.Solution24 2 2 1 1 1 9 8 86.928 1.63
    Sierra17 1 1 1 3 2 4 3 2 76.067 0.49
    Evergreen -- Equinox22 1 2 1 3 4 1 5 2 3 75.646 1.28
    All Responses325 5 4 7 8 14 22 18 59 69 119 97.248 0.33

    Very Small Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2021)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo66 1 2 15 48 98.629 1.11
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions30 1 6 9 14 98.178 0.91
    Polaris24 1 1 1 9 12 98.179 1.84
    Atriuum40 3 8 11 18 98.108 1.26
    Symphony25 2 2 8 9 4 86.968 1.40
    VERSO73 1 2 2 3 2 8 19 22 14 86.967 0.70
    Sierra14 2 3 1 3 4 1 86.507 2.14
    All Responses340 3 3 2 6 5 13 15 67 94 132 97.678 0.33

    Very Small Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2021)

    ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo66 1 1 1 21 42 98.529 1.11
    Polaris24 1 1 1 9 12 98.179 1.84
    Atriuum40 3 11 8 18 98.038 1.11
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions30 1 7 10 12 97.938 0.18
    VERSO71 2 1 3 1 1 8 14 25 16 87.218 0.83
    Symphony25 1 1 2 1 5 10 5 87.128 1.60
    Sierra14 1 3 1 3 5 1 86.717 2.14
    All Responses337 1 4 2 9 1 8 25 58 106 123 97.698 0.38

    Very Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2021)

    Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo65 1 1 1 1 2 14 45 98.389 1.12
    Polaris24 1 1 8 14 98.299 1.84
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions28 1 1 3 8 15 98.049 0.19
    Atriuum40 1 1 2 5 11 20 98.039 1.42
    VERSO72 1 3 1 3 2 2 14 30 16 87.318 0.71
    Sierra13 3 3 5 2 87.238 2.22
    Symphony25 1 1 1 2 5 11 4 87.128 1.40
    All Responses335 2 2 6 4 5 9 13 46 114 134 97.798 0.33

    Very Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2021)

    Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo63 1 1 1 2 6 17 35 98.149 1.13
    Polaris24 1 1 2 4 6 10 97.548 1.84
    Atriuum39 1 1 1 1 5 9 5 16 97.338 1.12
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions29 1 1 1 2 3 7 5 9 97.077 0.93
    VERSO69 2 3 1 4 8 2 12 25 12 86.808 0.60
    Sierra14 1 3 3 6 1 86.648 2.14
    Symphony25 3 1 1 3 4 7 6 86.608 1.40
    All Responses327 17 2 6 7 11 23 24 57 79 101 96.978 0.28

    Very Small Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2021)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo65 1 1 1 14 48 98.559 1.12
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions29 1 4 7 17 98.349 0.93
    Atriuum40 1 1 4 4 5 25 98.159 1.42
    Polaris24 1 1 3 7 12 98.049 1.84
    VERSO70 3 1 1 1 1 4 8 20 31 97.608 0.96
    Symphony25 2 2 2 6 8 5 86.928 1.60
    Sierra14 1 2 1 2 2 4 2 86.367 2.14
    All Responses332 6 4 3 5 11 18 38 82 165 97.848 0.44

    Very Small Public Libraries: Company loyalty (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2021)

    Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo65 1 4 10 50 98.659 1.12
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions29 1 1 3 10 14 98.038 0.00
    Atriuum40 2 3 5 11 19 98.008 1.26
    Polaris24 1 1 2 1 3 5 11 97.638 1.84
    Symphony25 2 4 2 1 9 7 86.968 1.60
    VERSO73 4 1 1 2 2 3 5 14 24 17 86.928 0.59
    Sierra13 2 1 1 1 1 5 2 86.158 2.22
    All Responses332 13 1 1 6 8 13 18 44 88 140 97.528 0.27

    All Public Libraries: General ILS satisfaction (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (2021)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo105 1 6 28 70 98.569 0.88
    Evergreen -- Independent16 2 8 6 88.258 2.00
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions80 1 1 17 37 24 88.038 0.78
    Atriuum81 1 10 15 22 33 97.948 0.89
    Polaris149 3 1 4 13 41 50 37 87.598 0.57
    Spydus22 2 2 6 10 2 87.368 1.07
    Symphony197 3 4 1 3 14 13 63 61 35 77.187 0.14
    VERSO110 1 2 2 7 1 3 12 25 36 21 87.008 0.57
    Library.Solution57 1 5 1 1 4 16 19 10 86.958 0.79
    Horizon56 1 3 4 9 18 13 8 76.917 1.07
    Carl.X22 1 1 1 1 1 8 2 7 76.917 0.43
    Evergreen -- Equinox42 2 3 6 2 14 9 6 76.767 1.39
    Sierra106 2 1 1 1 6 8 19 38 21 9 76.597 0.58
    All Responses1150 8 4 14 23 20 49 90 307 341 294 87.388 0.18

    All Public Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (2021)

    ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Apollo105 1 3 5 39 57 98.399 0.88
    Evergreen -- Independent16 3 6 7 98.258 1.75
    Atriuum81 10 20 20 31 97.898 0.78
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions80 1 3 24 32 20 87.798 0.78
    Polaris149 1 3 2 15 42 50 36 87.588 0.49
    Spydus22 2 3 8 7 2 77.187 1.07
    VERSO108 2 1 6 2 3 12 23 37 22 87.158 0.67
    Symphony197 2 3 2 4 17 12 67 63 27 77.117 0.14
    Evergreen -- Equinox42 3 6 5 12 11 5 76.887 1.39
    Library.Solution57 1 4 1 1 2 9 12 20 7 86.797 0.79
    Horizon56 1 1 2 2 15 18 12 5 76.797 1.07
    Sierra106 1 2 1 1 3 12 16 31 31 8 76.727 0.68
    Carl.X22 1 2 2 3 7 2 5 76.597 0.64
    All Responses1147 3 8 11 22 17 53 114 305 359 255 87.348 0.21

    All Public Libraries: Overall ILS Support (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (2021)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Evergreen -- Independent15 1 1 3 10 98.479 1.81
    Apollo103 1 1 1 2 4 27 67 98.449 0.89
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions79 1 1 13 23 41 98.299 1.01
    Atriuum81 3 3 4 9 14 48 98.129 1.00
    Horizon54 2 2 3 9 21 17 87.788 1.22
    VERSO107 4 1 2 1 2 8 15 28 46 97.598 0.77
    Symphony193 3 1 3 4 12 11 35 60 64 97.538 0.58
    Library.Solution56 1 1 2 1 1 4 9 14 23 97.488 0.80
    Polaris144 1 3 5 8 17 34 41 35 87.328 0.33
    Evergreen -- Equinox42 1 2 4 4 12 5 14 97.247 1.39
    Carl.X21 1 1 3 3 6 7 97.198 0.65
    Sierra104 2 1 2 4 5 14 19 18 28 11 86.447 0.49
    Spydus22 1 4 3 3 8 2 1 76.057 0.85
    All Responses1125 11 9 7 17 30 58 84 188 297 424 97.558 0.24

    Academic Libraries

    top

    Large Academic Libraries: General ILS satisfaction (2021)

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2021)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Alma75 3 6 11 33 19 3 76.917 0.81
    Sierra20 2 1 4 4 5 3 1 65.105 0.89
    All Responses138 1 2 5 11 16 26 47 26 4 76.327 0.60

    Large Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2021)

    ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Alma75 1 2 3 11 31 25 2 76.997 0.69
    Sierra19 4 1 6 4 3 1 55.215 0.69
    All Responses137 4 11 4 14 24 44 33 3 76.357 0.51

    Large Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2021)

    Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Sierra20 1 2 8 7 2 77.357 1.34
    Alma75 1 2 9 29 31 3 87.287 0.81
    All Responses138 3 1 5 16 51 52 10 87.227 0.60

    Large Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2021)

    Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Alma75 1 3 3 18 27 17 6 76.887 0.69
    Sierra20 1 3 5 2 3 1 3 2 23.403 0.45
    All Responses138 3 8 9 4 11 14 26 31 25 7 75.716 0.51

    Large Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2021)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Sierra20 1 1 1 3 8 5 1 76.607 0.45
    Alma74 3 5 6 9 19 21 11 75.936 0.93
    All Responses137 1 6 6 10 12 27 37 23 15 76.367 0.68

    Large Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2021)

    Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Alma73 1 4 1 8 3 19 24 13 87.078 0.94
    Sierra20 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 4 2 55.005 0.22
    All Responses135 5 1 2 8 4 20 11 30 34 20 86.477 0.69

    Medium-sized Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2021)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Symphony12 1 4 1 3 3 67.178 1.73
    Alma100 1 2 6 21 30 34 6 87.027 0.80
    WorldShare Management Services31 1 5 5 13 7 76.617 1.26
    Sierra34 1 4 6 11 8 3 1 65.976 1.37
    All Responses226 1 2 6 1 10 25 45 62 58 16 76.617 0.47

    Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2021)

    ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Alma100 1 1 1 4 10 29 42 12 87.368 0.90
    Symphony12 1 1 1 1 6 2 87.178 2.02
    WorldShare Management Services31 1 2 6 15 6 1 76.817 1.26
    Sierra34 1 2 10 7 9 3 2 56.096 1.37
    All Responses226 1 1 5 5 7 25 29 66 65 22 76.787 0.47

    Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2021)

    Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Symphony12 1 2 4 5 97.678 2.31
    WorldShare Management Services30 3 1 5 15 6 87.678 1.46
    Sierra34 1 6 6 14 7 87.598 1.54
    Alma99 2 1 2 12 23 49 10 87.428 0.80
    All Responses224 1 2 4 1 6 29 49 92 40 87.428 0.53

    Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2021)

    Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Alma100 1 4 5 15 33 33 9 77.107 0.80
    Symphony12 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 76.427 2.02
    WorldShare Management Services31 1 1 1 1 5 3 13 4 2 76.267 1.44
    Sierra33 5 2 7 10 2 2 4 1 54.885 1.57
    All Responses225 5 3 13 5 19 26 26 61 51 16 76.167 0.47

    Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2021)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Symphony12 1 2 2 2 5 97.428 1.44
    WorldShare Management Services31 1 3 2 4 7 13 1 86.487 1.44
    Alma99 2 2 5 16 21 33 13 7 76.407 0.70
    Sierra34 2 4 1 2 5 5 9 4 2 75.566 1.54
    All Responses225 1 4 9 5 11 27 35 62 44 27 76.477 0.40

    Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2021)

    Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    Alma98 1 1 5 15 6 26 23 21 77.057 0.91
    Symphony12 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 96.508 1.15
    WorldShare Management Services31 2 1 2 2 1 2 8 6 7 76.427 1.62
    Sierra34 1 4 3 4 6 6 4 5 1 55.185 1.03
    All Responses224 5 4 7 10 15 27 20 43 47 46 86.497 0.53

    Smaller Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2021)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS21 1 3 17 98.679 1.96
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions25 1 1 9 8 6 77.608 1.80
    WorldShare Management Services45 1 1 2 8 19 8 6 77.027 1.04
    Alma101 1 3 4 5 8 13 36 24 7 76.577 0.80
    Symphony35 1 2 3 2 5 12 4 6 76.467 1.35
    Sierra41 1 1 2 5 11 12 8 1 76.227 0.78
    All Responses359 2 4 5 12 12 22 51 112 83 56 76.877 0.42

    Smaller Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2021)

    ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS21 1 1 5 14 98.529 1.75
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions25 1 2 8 9 5 87.528 1.60
    WorldShare Management Services45 1 3 4 15 14 8 77.387 1.19
    Alma100 1 1 7 5 11 32 27 16 77.087 0.80
    Symphony35 1 4 5 3 9 7 6 76.697 1.35
    Sierra41 1 1 2 1 1 9 15 8 3 76.497 0.47
    All Responses358 1 4 4 6 16 23 40 106 94 64 77.047 0.37

    Smaller Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2021)

    Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS21 1 3 17 98.769 1.96
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions25 2 6 8 9 97.968 1.80
    Sierra41 1 1 5 8 17 9 87.598 0.94
    WorldShare Management Services45 1 2 5 11 16 10 87.538 1.19
    Symphony35 3 1 3 10 10 8 77.348 1.35
    Alma99 1 2 5 5 12 30 29 15 77.097 0.80
    All Responses357 1 1 5 9 11 34 87 115 94 87.538 0.32

    Smaller Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2021)

    Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS19 1 5 12 1 87.378 1.61
    WorldShare Management Services45 1 1 1 5 11 10 10 6 66.737 1.04
    Alma100 2 1 4 6 9 18 25 26 9 86.577 0.80
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions24 1 2 2 2 4 3 3 6 1 85.586 1.43
    Sierra40 2 4 2 2 4 4 5 11 4 2 75.176 0.16
    Symphony35 4 2 4 2 6 5 7 3 2 75.005 1.35
    All Responses351 12 12 11 20 20 41 52 84 73 26 75.977 0.27

    Smaller Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2021)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS21 1 8 12 98.299 1.75
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions25 1 1 1 3 10 9 87.888 1.60
    WorldShare Management Services45 1 1 1 2 4 3 8 15 10 87.078 1.34
    Symphony34 2 1 2 4 2 3 12 8 86.948 1.03
    Sierra39 1 1 2 2 4 9 14 3 3 76.157 1.28
    Alma101 1 4 2 9 7 8 18 26 16 10 76.057 0.80
    All Responses354 2 6 8 16 15 23 43 74 87 80 86.887 0.43

    Smaller Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2021)

    Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS20 1 7 12 98.409 1.79
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions24 1 6 11 6 87.838 1.63
    WorldShare Management Services45 1 8 3 9 9 15 97.298 1.19
    Alma99 4 2 6 7 3 16 4 24 19 14 76.037 0.80
    Symphony35 2 3 1 3 3 3 7 9 4 86.037 1.18
    Sierra38 5 2 5 8 3 10 2 3 75.185 0.97
    All Responses349 13 4 11 12 14 42 19 75 81 78 86.647 0.43

    All Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (2021)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS32 1 5 26 98.729 1.59
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions32 1 1 12 11 7 77.638 1.59
    Koha12 1 1 2 5 3 87.428 2.02
    WorldShare Management Services88 2 2 8 15 37 18 6 76.837 0.75
    Alma285 1 4 4 11 21 46 104 78 16 76.817 0.47
    Symphony58 2 2 5 2 12 17 8 10 76.537 0.92
    Library.Solution12 1 3 1 5 2 76.427 1.44
    Horizon13 1 2 3 1 1 3 2 56.006 2.50
    ALEPH 50015 1 1 3 5 3 1 1 66.006 1.55
    Sierra97 1 1 3 3 8 15 28 24 12 2 65.916 0.81
    Voyager13 1 4 1 1 3 3 45.696 2.22
    All Responses754 4 6 13 20 34 65 126 229 172 85 76.707 0.29

    All Academic Libraries: General ILS Functionality (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (2021)

    ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS32 1 1 9 21 98.569 1.41
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions32 1 1 2 11 11 6 77.478 1.41
    Koha12 1 2 1 5 3 87.338 1.44
    Alma284 3 4 8 14 33 96 96 30 77.147 0.47
    WorldShare Management Services88 1 2 7 13 31 25 9 77.077 0.75
    Symphony58 2 1 5 7 6 13 15 9 86.727 0.92
    Library.Solution12 1 2 2 4 1 2 76.587 1.73
    Sierra96 1 1 1 6 4 17 21 27 13 5 76.106 0.82
    ALEPH 50015 2 2 5 4 2 66.006 1.55
    Horizon13 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 25.626 2.50
    Voyager13 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 75.546 2.22
    All Responses752 2 5 14 22 28 64 98 222 199 98 76.847 0.26

    All Academic Libraries: Effectiveness in managing print resources (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (2021)

    Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS32 1 4 27 98.819 1.59
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions32 3 7 11 11 87.948 1.59
    Horizon13 1 6 3 3 77.627 2.50
    ALEPH 50015 1 1 5 4 4 77.608 1.81
    Sierra97 1 3 14 22 39 18 87.538 0.91
    WorldShare Management Services87 1 6 9 21 34 16 87.488 0.86
    Voyager13 1 2 2 4 4 87.468 2.50
    Koha12 1 1 2 5 3 87.428 2.02
    Symphony58 2 3 3 5 14 18 13 87.288 1.05
    Alma282 1 5 7 10 33 84 114 28 87.258 0.48
    Library.Solution12 1 1 2 4 2 2 76.837 1.73
    All Responses750 1 1 3 13 12 25 81 192 268 154 87.448 0.22

    All Academic Libraries: Effectiveness in managing electronic resources (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (2021)

    Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS27 1 5 20 1 87.568 1.54
    Alma284 2 2 5 14 19 53 86 79 24 76.837 0.47
    WorldShare Management Services88 2 1 2 3 13 17 24 17 9 76.527 0.85
    Library.Solution12 1 4 2 3 2 56.176 1.44
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions31 2 3 2 2 5 6 4 6 1 65.356 1.26
    Symphony58 6 3 4 4 11 7 12 6 5 75.316 0.66
    Sierra95 3 7 12 6 14 15 11 16 8 3 74.735 0.92
    Voyager13 3 1 1 2 2 1 3 14.384 2.22
    ALEPH 50015 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 53.874 1.29
    Horizon12 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 43.084 1.44
    All Responses742 21 23 35 30 52 84 109 178 159 51 75.997 0.18

    All Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with ILS support (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (2021)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS32 1 11 20 98.449 1.59
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions32 1 1 1 4 13 12 87.978 1.41
    Horizon13 1 1 2 4 5 97.698 2.50
    Voyager13 1 3 2 5 2 87.318 2.50
    Symphony57 1 2 1 3 6 2 6 18 18 87.198 1.19
    Library.Solution12 1 1 1 3 3 3 77.088 0.87
    WorldShare Management Services88 2 5 1 4 5 10 20 29 12 86.777 0.85
    ALEPH 50015 1 4 2 3 2 3 56.677 1.55
    Alma283 1 4 7 17 18 36 60 81 42 17 76.146 0.48
    Sierra95 3 6 4 5 9 17 32 12 7 76.077 0.92
    All Responses747 4 12 23 28 36 66 107 178 162 131 76.677 0.29

    All Academic Libraries: Company Loyalty (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (2021)

    Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS28 10 18 98.649 1.51
    Koha -- ByWater Solutions22 1 3 9 9 88.098 1.71
    Voyager13 3 2 4 4 87.698 2.50
    ALEPH 50012 1 3 2 5 1 87.008 1.73
    WorldShare Management Services85 3 1 3 2 9 7 20 17 23 96.927 0.98
    Alma272 5 2 7 12 9 39 13 70 67 48 76.697 0.49
    Symphony46 3 3 2 4 4 5 8 9 8 86.047 0.74
    Sierra77 5 1 4 5 9 18 7 17 6 5 55.255 0.11
    All Responses664 22 9 17 28 29 80 43 140 152 144 86.627 0.31

    School Libraries

    top

    School Libraries: Overall ILS Satisfaction (2021)

    Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: School) (2021)

    Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS137 1 10 126 98.909 0.77
    Destiny48 5 3 18 9 13 77.467 1.30
    Library.Solution17 2 1 2 3 2 7 97.248 1.46
    All Responses236 1 1 6 1 9 9 28 25 156 98.159 0.59

    School Libraries: General ILS Functionality (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: School) (2021)

    ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS137 1 2 22 112 98.799 0.77
    Destiny48 1 4 4 12 17 10 87.448 1.30
    Library.Solution17 1 1 3 3 4 5 97.248 1.46
    All Responses237 1 6 4 6 11 23 51 135 98.089 0.58

    School Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: School) (2021)

    Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS137 1 6 130 98.939 0.77
    Destiny47 3 3 9 9 23 97.988 1.31
    Library.Solution17 1 1 1 4 3 7 97.478 1.70
    All Responses236 1 1 6 5 5 22 24 172 98.379 0.59

    School Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: School) (2021)

    Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS121 1 1 1 2 13 54 49 88.108 0.73
    Library.Solution16 4 2 3 3 4 57.067 1.25
    Destiny46 1 1 4 8 7 5 7 13 96.707 1.33
    All Responses216 4 3 5 6 18 14 24 71 71 87.388 0.54

    School Libraries: Company Loyalty (2021)

    top

    Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: School) (2021)

    Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
    CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
    OPALS135 1 1 27 106 98.769 0.77
    Destiny46 1 2 2 3 6 12 20 97.768 1.33
    Library.Solution17 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 5 96.358 1.46
    All Responses233 6 1 1 3 4 7 6 14 48 143 98.029 0.59


    An interactive version of the statistical reports, is available which includes the ability to view the responses for each of the ILS products, along with the redacted comments.


    ILS Turnover Reports

    Another set of reports provide information on the ILS products that were selected during 2021 by libraries registered in libraries.org. [Note: these numbers are not comprehensive.]

    The ILS Turn-over report counts and lists the automation systems recorded as selected or installed in 2021 with a breakdown of the previous systems displaced.

    The Reverse ILS Turn-over report. counts and lists the automation systems recorded as replaced in 2021 with a breakdown of the new systems that were selected


    Details about The Survey

    top

    The survey instrument included five numerical ratings, three yes/no responses, and two short response fields, and a text field for general comments. The numeric rating fields allow responses from 0 through 9. Each scale was labeled to indicate the meaning of the numeric selection.

    Four of the numeric questions probe at the level of satisfaction with and loyalty to the company or organization that provides its current automation system:

    • How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System?
    • How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library?
    • How satisfied is the library overall with the company from which you purchased your current ILS?
    • Has the customer support for this ILS gotten better or gotten worse in the last year?
    • How satisfied is this library with this company’s customer support services?
    • How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company?

    A yes/no question asks whether the library is considering migrating to a new ILS and a fill-in text field provides the opportunity to provide specific systems under consideration. Another yes/no question asks whether the automation system currently in use was installed on schedule.

    view automation survey

    Given the recent interest in new search interfaces, a yes/no question asks “Is the library currently considering a search interface for its collection that is separate from the ILS?” and a fill-in form to indicate products under consideration.

    The survey includes two questions that aim to gauge interest in open source ILS, a numerical rating that asks “How likely is it that this library would consider implementing and open source ILS?” and a fill-in text field for indicating products under consideration.

    The survey concludes with a text box inviting comments.

    View the survey. (This version of the survey does not accept or record response data.)

    In order to correlate the responses with particular automation systems and companies, the survey links to entries in the libraries.org directory of libraries. Each entry in libraries.org indicates the automation system currently in use as well as data on the type of library, location, collection size, and other factors that might be of potential interest. In order to fill out the survey, the responder had first to find their library in libraries.org and then press a button that launched the response form. Some potential respondents indicated that found this process complex.

    The link between the libraries.org entry and the survey automatically populated fields for the library name and current automation system and provided access to other data elements about the library as needed. The report on survey response demographics, for example, relies on data from libraries.org.

    A number of methods were used to solicit responses to the survey. E-mail messages were sent to library-oriented mailing lists such as WEB4LIB and PUBLIB. Invitational messages were also sent to many lists for specific automation systems and companies. Where contact information was available in libraries.org, and automated script produced e-mail messages with a direct link to the survey response form for that library.

    The survey attempted to limit responses to one per library. This restriction was imposed to attempt to sway the respondents to reflect the broad perceptions of their institution rather than their personal opinions.

    The survey instrument was created using the same infrastructure as the Library Technology Guides web site—a custom interface written in perl using MySQL to store the data, with ODBC as the connection layer. Access to the raw responses is controlled through a user name and password available only to the author. Scripts were written to provide public access to the survey in a way that does not expose individual responses.

    In order to provide access to the comments without violating the stated agreement not to attribute individual responses to any given institution or individual, an addition field was created for “edited comments.” This field was manually populated with text selected from the “comments” text provided by the respondent. Any information that might identify the individual or library was edited out, with an ellipse indicating the removed text. Comments that only explained a response or described the circumstances of the library were not transferred to the Edited Comments field.

    Statistics

    top

    To analyze the results, a few scripts were written to summarize, analyze, and present the responses.

    In order to avoid making generalizations based on inadequate sample sizes, the processing scripts included a threshold variable that would only present results when the number of responses exceeded the specified value. The threshold was set to a value of 20.

    For each of the survey questions that involve a numeric rating, a set of subroutines was created to calculate and display simple statistics.

    • Responses indicates the number of survey responses that made a selection for this question.
    • A Response Distribution array lists the number of responses for each possible value from 0-9.
    • The Mode indicates the numeric response that received the most selections.
    • The Mean is the average response, calculated by adding together all the responses and dividing by the Responses value, rounding to two significant decimal places.
    • The Median is the middle response, calculated by placing each of the responses in a sorted array and selecting the middle value.
    • The Standard Deviation was calculated by subtracting each response value from the mean, squaring the difference, summing the squares and dividing by the number of responses to determine the variance. The standard deviation is the square root of the variance.

    The "survey-report-by-category.pl" script processes each of the numerical ratings, displaying each of the statistical components listed above for each product that received responses above the threshold value. This report provides a convenient way to compare the performance of each ILS product for the selected question. The report sorts the statistics for each product in descending order of the mean. The report categories available correspond to the survey questions with numerical scale responses.

    The “survey-product-report.pl” script provides the results for each of the ILS products mentioned in the responses. This report also provides the statistical components for each of the numeric question. It also provides the percentage of yes responses to the two yes/no questions:

    • Is this library currently considering migrating to a new ILS?
    • Is this library currently considering acquiring a search interface for its collection that is separate from the ILS? The report then lists the “EditedComments” text.

    [The text of this section mostly replicates what appeared in the 2007 version of this article. For for both editions of the survey I followed the same methodology for collection and and statistical analysis.]


    Caveat

    As noted with previous editions of the survey, libraries evaluating products should not read too much into the survey results. Individuals responding to the survey provide their subjective impressions to fairly general questions. Although the survey instructions encourage responders to consider the broader institutional perceptions, it’s usually the case that multiple opinions prevail within any given library. Although the survey attempts to provide useful information about the experiences of libraries with their current integrated library systems and the organizations that provide support, it should not be used as a definitive assessment tool.


    views: 6817

    Mobile device