Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for

Statistics according to type and size categories

The following table presents the 2021 results according to the type and size of the library.

2021 Responses by Sector
allAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS26787.21 3136.842016.631276.398277.461957.16387.421838.03977.22
ILSFunctionality26737.23 3127.022016.811276.398247.441957.06387.181837.99997.23
PrintFunctionality26577.68 3117.492007.421277.288177.681947.62367.781828.32997.74
ElectronicFunctionality25766.27 3066.002006.241275.848036.481926.05366.081637.21955.86
SatisfactionCustomerSupport26377.31 3096.822006.481266.378077.611947.41377.541828.27987.24
CompanyLoyalty26277.10 3036.631996.601246.578097.311947.09377.491807.89987.29



2021 Survey Results
Product: Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction2678 14 12 41 60 76 144 284 720 667 660 77.217
ILS Functionality2673 7 14 31 62 69 150 284 697 763 596 87.238
Print Functionality2657 6 7 15 30 49 83 198 532 869 868 87.688
Electronic Functionality2576 82 49 90 114 154 291 346 545 534 371 76.277
Company Satisfaction2641 21 21 41 73 82 156 254 556 706 731 97.228
Support Satisfaction2637 18 28 40 55 93 165 254 471 641 872 97.318
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty2627 79 27 51 74 87 195 176 450 632 856 97.108
Open Source Interest2214 560 174 204 161 121 268 124 132 113 174 04.002

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS2747 33812.30%
Considering new Interface2747 1354.91%
System Installed on time?2747 00.00%

Average Collection size: 1076273

TypeCount
Public1130
Academic696
School184
Consortium100
Special67

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0000
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2020 Survey Results
Product: Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction2773 9 12 48 62 65 149 257 750 711 710 77.278
ILS Functionality2762 4 13 43 60 72 154 283 670 821 642 87.278
Print Functionality2750 6 6 20 26 42 93 167 538 924 928 97.738
Electronic Functionality2686 97 53 99 111 144 269 381 584 540 408 76.287
Company Satisfaction2726 13 21 55 59 79 136 275 562 696 830 97.318
Support Satisfaction2719 14 27 50 58 79 165 261 442 650 972 97.388
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty2715 101 40 51 45 73 181 192 470 598 964 97.148
Open Source Interest2196 591 167 224 156 107 271 139 117 122 158 03.812

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS2849 39613.90%
Considering new Interface2849 1495.23%
System Installed on time?2849 00.00%

Average Collection size: 748913

TypeCount
Public1220
Academic883
School279
Consortium105
Special77

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0000
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2019 Survey Results
Product: Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction3189 18 22 68 86 116 250 393 786 735 715 76.997
ILS Functionality3179 14 20 47 118 126 200 428 788 785 653 76.997
Print Functionality3159 21 13 21 44 90 142 280 645 960 943 87.488
Electronic Functionality3057 116 106 130 144 207 349 400 611 608 386 76.017
Company Satisfaction3153 40 48 78 94 151 230 345 609 716 842 96.947
Support Satisfaction3129 41 43 81 108 146 248 337 505 667 953 96.978
Support Improvement3050 52 36 48 107 294 799 318 366 481 549 56.196
Company Loyalty3099 146 66 93 76 172 265 267 455 617 942 96.688
Open Source Interest3073 798 281 297 180 272 253 159 125 138 570 03.853

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS3233 52216.15%
Considering new Interface3233 3199.87%
System Installed on time?3233 293490.75%

Average Collection size: 1228189

TypeCount
Public1241
Academic1148
School292
Consortium119
Special86

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0000
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2018 Survey Results
Product: Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction3487 25 24 59 84 139 258 444 842 768 844 97.047
ILS Functionality3478 11 28 50 114 144 266 442 802 831 790 87.027
Print Functionality3448 34 18 25 40 87 157 308 707 1024 1048 97.478
Electronic Functionality3331 137 93 139 165 231 352 446 678 634 456 76.057
Company Satisfaction3445 42 54 68 117 147 269 409 673 708 958 96.947
Support Satisfaction3428 44 64 82 106 161 266 364 587 679 1075 96.988
Support Improvement3347 76 36 66 104 333 852 314 393 547 626 56.196
Company Loyalty3408 153 72 110 87 160 313 282 515 625 1091 96.718
Open Source Interest3345 916 340 344 175 285 297 151 125 130 582 03.663

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS3534 54615.45%
Considering new Interface3534 3409.62%
System Installed on time?3534 324291.74%

Average Collection size: 613316

TypeCount
Public1500
Academic1047
School425
Consortium114
Special88

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0000
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2017 Survey Results
Product: Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction3936 20 17 76 93 165 285 546 982 895 857 77.007
ILS Functionality3921 11 20 81 107 173 304 543 935 1011 736 86.947
Print Functionality3906 30 12 36 52 101 181 330 841 1214 1109 87.458
Electronic Functionality3805 126 122 201 181 266 445 536 742 718 468 75.977
Company Satisfaction3888 26 48 90 103 193 329 440 756 883 1020 96.987
Support Satisfaction3855 30 62 83 123 177 303 417 694 821 1145 97.028
Support Improvement3759 64 32 70 113 339 976 372 499 609 685 56.256
Company Loyalty3815 165 61 112 109 187 356 348 601 711 1165 96.717
Open Source Interest3801 1087 430 391 215 349 292 170 143 149 575 03.452

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS3985 66016.56%
Considering new Interface3985 3358.41%
System Installed on time?3985 361590.72%

Average Collection size: 565957

TypeCount
Public1641
Academic1198
School519
Consortium142
Special102

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0000
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction3963 29 39 80 100 172 289 507 941 973 833 86.957
ILS Functionality3949 15 33 85 131 181 307 475 934 1022 766 86.927
Print Functionality3931 39 14 29 65 111 186 339 796 1239 1113 87.428
Electronic Functionality3811 164 112 191 219 267 445 514 723 690 486 75.906
Company Satisfaction3933 38 59 93 136 197 312 443 753 941 961 96.897
Support Satisfaction3878 58 67 92 131 192 317 403 673 849 1096 96.918
Support Improvement3786 83 46 84 117 400 961 402 498 565 630 56.096
Company Loyalty3865 170 94 84 95 233 356 343 575 755 1160 96.687
Open Source Interest3816 1156 423 421 221 354 299 183 134 155 470 03.242

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS4041 67516.70%
Considering new Interface4041 3338.24%
System Installed on time?4041 363890.03%

Average Collection size: 786665

TypeCount
Public1546
Academic1152
School788
Consortium114
Special102

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0000
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction3318 27 35 69 89 146 259 460 811 766 656 76.877
ILS Functionality3317 12 33 76 103 140 269 463 784 843 594 86.867
Print Functionality3295 25 22 38 49 98 161 297 692 1037 876 87.368
Electronic Functionality3177 108 121 164 176 233 365 431 626 531 422 75.906
Company Satisfaction3284 37 51 82 118 158 296 393 623 727 799 96.827
Support Satisfaction3257 43 56 93 110 170 260 334 563 718 910 96.897
Support Improvement3154 89 48 76 104 302 818 280 386 459 592 56.086
Company Loyalty3230 167 62 95 103 188 304 306 458 610 937 96.567
Open Source Interest3160 954 358 359 174 278 238 121 124 92 462 03.292

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS3449 63618.44%
Considering new Interface3449 35610.32%
System Installed on time?3449 303688.03%

Average Collection size: 1151875

TypeCount
Public1643
Academic943
School315
Consortium126
Special98

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0000
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction3071 29 27 76 100 132 237 410 827 714 519 76.787
ILS Functionality3067 11 35 85 113 129 237 440 777 765 475 76.767
Print Functionality3046 22 18 34 48 92 132 283 631 1028 758 87.368
Electronic Functionality2957 124 127 168 176 234 361 432 538 475 322 75.686
Company Satisfaction3042 43 60 82 98 139 251 364 631 702 672 86.777
Support Satisfaction3019 48 56 87 99 142 220 330 610 661 766 96.837
Support Improvement2947 74 53 69 96 288 776 277 385 423 506 56.046
Company Loyalty2995 159 80 90 96 179 271 258 429 561 872 96.517
Open Source Interest2941 873 387 328 158 262 250 124 107 91 361 03.162

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS3135 64920.70%
Considering new Interface3135 37712.03%
System Installed on time?3135 279189.03%

Average Collection size: 561653

TypeCount
Public1458
Academic939
School277
Consortium95
Special81

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0000
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction2923 27 28 54 84 101 188 316 700 721 704 87.067
ILS Functionality2919 17 20 64 87 105 202 334 672 791 627 87.037
Print Functionality2908 20 11 28 34 72 134 227 504 949 929 87.568
Electronic Functionality2795 97 97 122 164 192 354 385 480 487 417 85.976
Company Satisfaction2900 29 43 68 89 115 187 260 563 700 846 97.098
Support Satisfaction2883 30 51 60 76 122 210 260 508 625 941 97.128
Support Improvement2809 47 40 47 71 171 761 243 357 435 637 56.417
Company Loyalty2875 139 49 66 77 113 256 215 406 522 1032 96.878
Open Source Interest2792 852 284 264 168 188 329 121 109 69 408 03.382

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS3000 48716.23%
Considering new Interface3000 37712.57%
System Installed on time?3000 267089.00%

Average Collection size: 478424

TypeCount
Public1191
Academic678
School652
Consortium86
Special75

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0000
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction2913 28 29 68 108 128 219 342 750 670 571 76.837
ILS Functionality2911 21 24 67 118 147 220 337 755 731 491 76.797
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction2896 23 36 80 122 148 231 324 568 664 700 96.857
Support Satisfaction2884 33 35 80 105 148 211 321 558 614 779 96.907
Support Improvement2804 44 32 50 91 219 785 297 357 406 523 56.226
Company Loyalty2870 164 62 93 87 125 277 226 439 468 929 96.607
Open Source Interest2818 735 294 310 199 193 273 171 122 100 421 03.593

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS3031 63520.95%
Considering new Interface3031 45715.08%
System Installed on time?3031 265287.50%

Average Collection size: 946412

TypeCount
Public1527
Academic831
School191
Consortium95
Special95

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0000
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction2373 38 23 44 85 95 203 301 645 547 392 76.747
ILS Functionality2329 17 24 57 98 97 174 334 631 577 320 76.707
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction2359 40 25 78 93 120 207 297 486 561 452 86.667
Support Satisfaction2345 39 37 58 78 113 211 290 466 556 497 86.747
Support Improvement2296 47 29 50 73 169 690 252 298 331 357 56.076
Company Loyalty2340 132 66 68 75 124 263 204 340 425 643 96.427
Open Source Interest2268 523 227 274 147 165 243 149 138 104 298 03.733

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS2426 56423.25%
Considering new Interface2426 48019.79%
System Installed on time?2426 215988.99%

Average Collection size: 590068

TypeCount
Public1119
Academic783
School126
Consortium77
Special69

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0000
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2010 Survey Results
Product: Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction2096 17 13 45 70 96 189 235 556 487 388 76.847
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction2076 36 29 81 66 119 207 248 446 404 440 76.607
Support Satisfaction2073 38 32 60 82 123 179 253 408 412 486 96.677
Support Improvement2055 68 31 56 83 178 600 177 237 257 368 55.936
Company Loyalty2069 127 55 61 86 112 207 173 300 338 610 96.407
Open Source Interest2051 445 196 217 153 127 215 124 104 87 383 04.044

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS2165 45220.88%
Considering new Interface2165 51123.60%
System Installed on time?2165 190688.04%

Average Collection size: 465345

TypeCount
Public1127
Academic591
School143
Consortium66
Special60

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0000
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction2010 22 26 45 60 87 217 263 578 464 248 76.627
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction1995 32 40 95 98 112 235 241 441 389 312 76.327
Support Satisfaction1989 43 34 92 102 93 224 247 401 402 351 86.387
Support Improvement1877 61 49 69 76 134 577 208 235 234 234 55.705
Company Loyalty1979 170 61 67 79 107 246 148 307 330 464 96.037
Open Source Interest1964 388 219 209 139 146 233 131 142 94 263 03.924

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS2061 38518.68%
Considering new Interface2061 46322.46%
System Installed on time?2061 172283.55%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction1408 34 20 48 77 100 122 204 346 308 149 76.267
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction1408 58 37 80 104 120 149 180 278 227 175 75.796
Support Satisfaction1402 58 39 71 88 90 166 199 275 237 179 75.896
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty1398 130 53 82 80 85 160 115 210 229 254 95.636
Open Source Interest1388 249 151 146 109 104 179 92 120 67 171 04.004

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS1430 38526.92%
Considering new Interface1430 36925.80%
System Installed on time?1430 128589.86%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction1254 17 11 38 49 52 124 190 357 271 145 76.527
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction1672 40 49 97 114 161 205 233 334 253 186 75.796
Support Satisfaction1663 35 46 78 106 144 183 233 346 279 213 76.007
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty1630 178 74 83 81 106 277 138 222 229 242 55.336
Open Source Interest1657 319 192 209 158 154 205 119 104 64 133 03.553

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS1709 40223.52%
Considering new Interface1709 37121.71%
System Installed on time?1709 10.06%




2021 : gen: 7.21 company 7.22 loyalty 7.10 support 7.31

2020 : gen: 7.27 company 7.31 loyalty 7.14 support 7.38

2019 : gen: 6.99 company 6.94 loyalty 6.68 support 6.97

2018 : gen: 7.04 company 6.94 loyalty 6.71 support 6.98

2017 : gen: 7.00 company 6.98 loyalty 6.71 support 7.02

2016 : gen: 6.95 company 6.89 loyalty 6.68 support 6.91

2015 : gen: 6.87 company 6.82 loyalty 6.56 support 6.89

2014 : gen: 6.78 company 6.77 loyalty 6.51 support 6.83

2013 : gen: 7.06 company 7.09 loyalty 6.87 support 7.12

2012 : gen: 6.83 company 6.85 loyalty 6.60 support 6.90

2011 : gen: 6.74 company 6.66 loyalty 6.42 support 6.74

2010 : gen: 6.84 company 6.60 loyalty 6.40 support 6.67

2009 : gen: 6.62 company 6.32 loyalty 6.03 support 6.38

2008 : gen: 6.26 company 5.79 loyalty 5.63 support 5.89

2007 : gen: 6.52 company 5.79 loyalty 5.33 support 6.00

Comments (survey2021)

Switching to an open source ILS and open source discovery layer (we went live October 4, 2021) has already had a major positive impact on our work. ByWater Solutions are a true partner, and working together we will continue to make our library system better and better. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Question about bias, I don't know so I answered with a score 5 as "neutral". I could ask someone in my department. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our administrative motivation for investigating an open source solution is purely based on financial considerations, not necessarily performance. The cost of maintaining an ILS is prohibitive and exorbitant. It is arguable whether moving to an open source solution from a vendor supported solution will really cost less, or whether we will just shift maintenance costs to personnel and equipment costs. But maintenance costs are making us seriously examine and consider the open source alternatives. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

There is a lack of products designed to meet the needs of large academic libraries. Cloud hosted ILS/LSP products currently available (both vendor and open source) are designed based on the needs of medium to small libraries. These products are too heavily invested in workflow integrations that may provide very real benefits for slammer client but present an obstacle to processing efficiency when scaled to the needs of large institutions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We actually use PrimoVE, not Primo for our Discovery layer. Perhaps you should make that distinction in your drop down menu. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are very impressed with the technical capabilities and configuration possibilities of Alma, but appalled by the poor customer support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our ILS is delivered as part of a large consortium [...], so if we were to think about an open source alternative, it would be quite a heavy lift. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Unfortunately for us, as part of the [...], our decisions regarding our ILS and Discovery Tool are made at the System level. I served on the system-wide committee that considered different Discovery Tool options when we licensed Primo in 2011, and several of us on that committee recommended that we select EBSCO Discovery System (EDS) due to the nature of our shared electronic collections being mostly made up of EBSCO databases at that time. Because we already had the existing contract with Ex Libris (from which we licensed Voyager), and also due to the fact that Ex Libris could implement Primo (and later Alma) as a single enterprise-level solution instead of 16 separate systems, (thus reducing the cost), Ex Libris was selected. Primo has never worked properly for our college due to the way each of our local electronic resources are activated in Alma. Alma works well for our physical metadata, and Primo works well for searching our print collections like a library catalog. But Primo is useless as a Discovery Tool when shared with 16 locations due to overlapping electronic collections, metadata issues, and a general lack of input or expertise from the staff at the 16 different colleges. Most of us are just waiting for the contract to run out, and we promote Primo as little as possible to our students who have a better chance searching for articles in the native interfaces of the multidisciplinary databases such as EBSCOhost Academic Search Complete or Gale OneFile. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

In physical items in collection, we now have only 54,798. If by # of items in collection you mean only physical items, then the number reported above should change to 54,798. If you mean physical and electronic titles, the number is listed above as 191,277. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Consider, yes, but we probably do not have adequate staffing to implement. I'd love to move to open source though. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Cloud based solution is what we were attracted to. (Library type: Special; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Will there be any discussion of CDL products/services? DLSG apprears to have a basic offering which we are using here. It appears at this point no ILS vendor offers a true CDL systems as part of their ILS solution. Seems like it would be a no brainier. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

OCLC Wise's "Community Engagement System," while reasonably capable in the realm of circulation services, is abysmally inefficient and inadequate on the technical services side, particularly with respect to the complex needs of research and special collections. Acquisitions, serials receiving, and OPAC indexing have not advanced to the level of its ILS competitors. Vendor support, while cordial, is under-resourced and slow to respond, complicated by international programming administration and the differing needs of European and American libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

AccessIt offers a discovery service with its product, but we don't use it - that's why I gave it a zero. The functunality is fine; we sometimes have problems with terminology. For example, figuring out our label stock and the measurements we needed to use to print correctly took several days of back and forth. We find support to be very responsive, but the time difference can sometimes create a delay. We don't hesitate to ask for improvements based on how we use the system! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We've had the product for nine years and nursed it from infancy to its young adulthood. Many improvements have been released every year, and I expect more will come in the future as well. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Interested in alternative discovery products; Enterprise showing its age. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Most vendors provide admin support and hosting so this alleviates having a librarian/dept that works strictly on library systems, at least in small academic libraries. Looking to change job title & description for a Systems Librarian to an Electronic Resources Librarian as their job is to work on interoperatibility of the various platforms we use for discovery of both print and electronic resources. Over the past year we concluded that it was our ILS vendor, when updating their system, would purge our electronic resources and we would need to re-add them each time (happened twice in one year). We are not currently using a subscription service either due to poor performance on their part. Another platform we use is Third Iron's Browzine, along with EDS and Bibliovation. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

This past year we feel that technical issues with data updates and indexing have increased. Slight wish for a focus shift towards data and platform stability, instead of new features. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

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

[...] (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We find that Enterprise is difficult for patrons to find what they want. We are looking at discovery layer products and will probably go with BiblioCommons' BiblioCore. Its relevancy ranking and FRBR listing make it much easier for patrons to navigate the catalog. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Migration from Voyager to Sierra was completed in June of 2021. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We do not have enough IT support available to consider open source. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We migrated a month ago fron Aleph to OCLC and are still configuring ILS and discovery, I can't be precise in my evaluations, it's too early. Before choosing OCLC, we considered also Folio with the Ebsco discovery service, but the development of the software had huge delays and we couldn't wait more. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

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. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

I would never consider an ILS that takes us backwards. SIRSI does a lot for us and I feel like an open source product does not have all that we need. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Acquisitions loves Alma. Circulation does not love Alma. Cataloging has no strong feelings either way. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We currently do not have a director so we are not pursuing any changes at this time but will explore the possibility in the future. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our library would need to find a service provide to host and support an open source product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

The responsiveness of ByWater Solutions to questions (and we have had a LOT) and problems is excellent. The ongoing relationship with trainers assigned to us during migration is extremely helpful. Every contact has been a pleasant one with ByWater staff displaying cheerful patience in explaining something repetitively. We are using Aspen Discovery as our library's website. The web-building functionality is basic but sufficient for our needs, and is being upgraded frequently by the developers. Ease of updating and changing is great. There is a learning curve to creating custom pages which is where the continual support from the ByWater Aspen team makes a huge difference. We are joining in the Aspen Community now, too, and will be able to learn and share with other libraries using Aspen. The community is developing a platform to make it possible for one library to share templates with others, spreading the expertise to those who don't yet have it (aka us). After our Koha migration, the library locations were immediately up and running, able to complete the daily tasks. The amount of training provided by the vendor, and access to a test server for weeks of practice, made a huge difference. It's quick to learn basic circ tasks because all the modules you need to touch in a patron's interactions with the library are on the same screen: holds, payments, history, contact preferences, checkouts, etc. Setting up reports and tweaking the notices to fit our custom situation has been the most time consuming, especially without a knowledge of SQL on our staff. ByWater has customized everything we need without additional cost, and staff is beginning to understand and use SQL now. That happened more quickly than expected. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? Not applicable: Electronic resources managed separately from ILS. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are the only academic library in a consortium that shares a SirsiDynix Symphony system. Most of the database management and almost all customer support interactions with SirsiDynix are done centrally by the consortium. We use Enterprise as our discovery layer for Symphony, but do not subscribe to a broader discovery service for our resources as a whole. The consortium will be developing in RFP for an ILS soon, and will be looking at all bidders, with no specific intention to stay with or leave SirsiDynix. Any decision to adopt an open source ILS would have to be made by the consortium as a whole, and that seems unlikely. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Overall, I am not satisfied with Insignia. It is a basic opac, but it doesn't appear to me to satisfy an American definition of discovery layer. The Insignia is also based on the idea of libraries using Dewey. Their reports often do not have LC as an option in the reports module. The Insignia reports assumes that everyone's books date post-1900. It cannot count the number of books any library has that were published prior to 1900. [...] idea is that we educate users to embrace the Insignia experience. but we can't do that. We cannot market their database. Most of these soldiers/students come from a robust university environment and they used discovery layers 1-10 years ago at a university. Even the local community colleges or small private colleges often have Alma/Primo, or at least a more robust Summon, or an EBSCO discovery layer. Insignia is marketed for a K-12 environment. Additionally, when it comes to self-check machines, Insignia does not have location codes that allow the library to gather statistics on its checkouts by SIP. IN a consortia environment all the SIP checkouts are checked out to a generic "US Army" library not to my library. So I cannot even run a report in Insignia that shows any circulation from the self-checkouts. It also has no way to run an overdue report on SIP checkouts. I would say that Insignia simply does not meet basic standards in a 21st century library. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

We migrated to Koha (supported by ByWater Solutions) to so save on annual costs for our ILS. We were able to redirect funds to materials, programs and technology. Koha is very customizable and the Koha community is a great resource for libraries. ByWater customer support is excellent. ByWater acquired Aspen Discovery which is an added annual cost that our library doesn't feel we can afford at this time. Some of our neighboring Koha libraries have moved to Aspen so we are beginning to feel a little less connected to them in regards to OPAC functionality. We would like to have seen some of the features in Aspen developed for native Koha libraries. Overall, our decision to move to Koha was the right one for our library. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We do not have the staff necessary to set-up and maintain an open source LMS or Discovery System. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Open Source ILS would be considered if it offered hosting and support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I just started with Library World in October (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

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. Apollo has so many convenience features built in, and is very open to making changes based on customer suggestions. We do not see this kind of openness from other vendors. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Electronic resources are over 90% of budget at a health sciences library. Therefore to us electronic resource management , and discoverability/usability of these resources for users are number one, and management of our print materials is a distant second. Most of our print just sits on the shelf, and I'd anticipate moving even more print especially journal back runs to off site storage within the next 10 years to make better use of our space. We are pretty happy with Primo and anticipate we'll be happier with Primo VE, to which we will move when we are once again at full staff. Then again - in our environment, most users are choosing Pubmed before they consider Primo, so the OpenURL linking ability with Pubmed that we get from Alma, as well as the use we get out of Browzine products we have are in some ways more important than even the discovery system. As other [...] libraries go with a [...] -hosted FOLIO together with an EDS front end - beginning in late 2022 with [...] going first - we will evaluate closely how that project is going, and what the real costs are as well as value if we were to consider these options. At the same time, for a midsize academic library with 32 employees system migration is a huge draw on capacity which we won't lightly undertake, having just migrated from Innovative in 2016. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

With the advent of COVID and having to pivot the library's access to more eResources and increased usage of automated circulation equipment such as self checkout/in, the integration between the ILS and these vendors has been challenging as the configuration options have been limited and outdated with the need to be more flexible with various vendors and environments. Development of ILS integration feels slow based on community and external pressures. A great ILS company to work with and be in partnership with. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We presently use and open source- Evergreen (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We don't have electronic resources in the catalog, which is why I left that question blank. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

(Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Follett Destiny does all of the basic print management tasks that school libraries require. However their discovery interface only provides user-friendly support for Follett Ebooks. All other electronic materials are only accessible via a series of unintuitive clicks that would require instructions to follow. This service drastically changed over the past summer that resulted in librarians coming back to school with a different and less useful catalog interface for their users. That being said, the time and cost of migrating systems for what is currently on the market still does not seem appropriate considering all of the other challenges facing our libraries. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

We get outstanding service from our consortium, and rarely work directly with the vendor. We are extremely likely to stay with the consortium. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Alma and Primo are Ferrari library systems and we are used to working on a simple Volkswagen engine. The library has limited staff and it was a huge effort for us to learn to use the system, although it is top-notch overall. The instructional materials provided by the vendor were extensive, although they tended to jump from very basic to highly technical with no in-between information. For example looking up how to send letters to patrons goes from "you can send letters to patrons!" to creating and editing letters utilizing XML/XSL. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

While individual support interactions are excellent, overall, it is clear that the wind-down of Voyager support and development is accelerating. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

Regarding the approximate number of items in the collection question at the top, that's the number for physical items. Electronic items available mostly via subscriptions are in the hundreds of thousands. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are currently configuring FOLIO's e-resource management module. We are interested in possibly moving to FOLIO, but i wouldn't say that's under serious consideration at this time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

2017 we merged with [...] and in 2019 imported their holdings into Alma. Also that year we imported the holdings from one of the health system hospital libraries that is maintaining their own physical collection. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We would need a library systems office in order to implement an open source ILS/Discovery product (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

perhaps a question about or cost effectiveness would be relevant? (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

III's Sierra system is not functional for a multi-type consortia where each institution has varying circulation rules and policies. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

We already use an open-source ILS - Koha (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

As a consortial ILS user, all member libraries inthe consortium would have to agree on a new system, which is not a high priority at this time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Covid complicates most of the answers. We're part of a cooperative, so answers to some questions we don't really know. We deal with the cooperative, not with TLC directly on almost all levels. Through the grapevine, we hear each 'side' blame the other for our issues, so... the issues are much more complex than the answer ranges provided. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

I'm not sure why we are being asked about Academic Discovery Services--we are a public library. I answered for general patrons instead of undergrads or graduate students. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

ExLibris Salesforce is so poorly managed. It takes months to get most things resolved with really no communication from the representative. SirsiDynix has a lot better customer service with very responsive client care representatives and timely resolutions. Overall, Alma and Primo are more complicated than the library staff and students need. We are paying a lot of money for system that a lot of parts do not fit the needs of the students or library staff. How they have set up resource sharing in a consortium makes it impossible to manage lost items from other institutions' patrons. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

I love Polairs client. I hate LEAP, which is the web-based version Innovative is pushing us to use. LEAP does not have all the functionality of the client, but they have stopped support of the client anyway. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our library actually likes Folio very much, but I do not believe that is the case across the consortium. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Open source/LINUX was a disaster. Too difficult with LINUX. No time to learn SQL. Very difficult to manage. Crashed a lot. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our consortium is moving to Primo VE. This may look similar to our end-users, but it is a different product. I should stop being surprised by Ex Libris products being half-cooked, but there are a surprising amount of things that are simply not built out of the box. Again, Primo is a much heavier tool than we as a community college need. The cognitive load on our end users as well as our employees who work with and teach the system is significant. It is really a shame that Ex Libris has achieved such market dominance. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are a special library and many of our materials use hyphens in their titles. This can affect searchability. We do not currently have any digital materials. The help desk of Auto Graphics is supportive. However we do encounter issues that do not have a resolution. Some features lack in their ability to be customized, such as disabling certain notifications. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

Biblionix is very responsive to requests for minor fixes as well as ideas for future development. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Sierra has been a hot and cold relationship, as the parent company Innovative changes frequently. The updates to the actual ILS have only been positive, however the issues that come with managing Sierra hold us back as a library. Frequently we are having to deal with scheduled email notification outages. The issues we ever have with the company are always ultimately addressed in either a major update or through their ticketing system. The ticketing from Sierra has also seen many changes. From unresponsive tickets, to a new urgency system where we can escalate depending on need, the customer support has always been a problem. Though recently the tickets are being handled with great haste. Some familiar issues they have always had are adding attachments to the tickets which require workarounds to send them the documents needed to help identify the issue we are facing. Overall the direction for Innovative is a positive one, so it seems the purchase from ProQuest helped its customers. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

I find it hard to separate out the vendor from the technical people at the consortium to which we belong. The convinced the member libraries to go along with open source by over-promising what it could provide and then bungled it. I am not expert enough to tell whether our problems were on the ILS end or the consortium end. Personally, I think it was on the consortium end. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We've been thrilled working with ByWater to support Koha and Aspen Discovery. Generally our support is first rate, with very few reasons to complain. Our consortia is constant contact with ByWater support as we work through issues and chart our course for future developments. it is the type of organization where I know I can come to anyone in the company up to the owners and I will be given a serious response. I appreciate our relationship with them and our ability to use great open source software products that they support. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Bibliovation has improved since release, as our regional consortium has worked with them to correct problems. The reporting tool has seen several issues that needed to be fixed. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our libraries have not switched to the updated version of Discovery. They do not have icons to distinguish the various source types which we feel are needed for our students. We've asked EBSCO to put the icons back in the new version. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

TLC's LS2 is intuitive for a user, doesn't take a great deal of training. However, the mobile PAC has multiple issues, including holds not being placed when the patron thinks it has been placed and not being able to see parts of one's account information unless switching to desktop mode, which isn't very easy to figure out how to do. These issues have been a problem for years and are known bugs that continue to be unresolved. There is also an issue with designating different pick-up locations for holds that require the creation of multiple accounts to trigger the holds rather than a system that lists a pickup location from the main circulation login. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

definitely feeling impatient for meaningful BIBFRAME implementation in the ILS world!!! (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Ex Libris/Proquest recently implemented a new support site that is functionally pretty terrible. It took almost a week just to be able to log in and see my own cases. It was the biggest new rollout disaster I've ever seen. It seems the product just wasn't ready before launch. This would make me very hesitant to adopt a new Ex Libris product in the future. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Current setup of Symphony doesn't work well for a consortium. Difficult to locate library in search list when so many libraries involved. Improvements have been suggested to the vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Bywater Solutions made the migration to Koha SO EASY, and they are always SO QUICK to help us and answer any questions. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

On customer service, our problems lie entirely with administrative support. Product support is excellent. I think those two support services should be considered separately in future surveys. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are incredibly frustrated with the API issue that keeps us from using third party vendors. We were part of beta testing regarding the ILS's new interface, and we were told that would be able track staff activity in that coming year. We are still waiting. This feature is very important to us for training purposes. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Koha works very well, but it does have a few drawbacks. One of these is less features for consortium libraries, particularly those comprised of independent libraries. Recent versions of Koha have helped address this issue, but it still requires a great deal of management to make a large consortium work well. Open source is a big advantage, because it means that the community works together to keep Koha up to date and add new features. However, if there is a disconnect between developers and library staff, it can mean new features or changes that cause more workflow disruption for librarians than the improvements are worth. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

It has a wealth of open source content vetted by librarians and we have the ability to add our own material as well (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are a public library and are looking to migrate to a program that is better suited to the needs we have for reaching out to the community. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Open Source attractive intellectually, but pragmatically we need strong vendor support having a tiny technical team in an under-resourced smallish remote/regional university. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Estamos en el proceso de migración desde Sierra a SirsiDynix, esperamos estar en producción a mediados de enero 2022. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Liblime Bibliovation is based on the open source Koha system. Some of it's shortcomings are problems introduced into the Bibliovation version that is no longer the same as the open source version. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We will be fully migrated to FOLIO starting 1 February 2022. We will no longer subscribe to Sierra, due to the uncertainty of its future in the academic environment and the other ProQuest products are too expensive. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have resigned from EDS EBSCO for cost-saving reasons, as we are planning to switch to the new system next year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 3)

Regretfully open source (e.g. Folio) have not reached their potential, and are 'missing' some critical elements for an ILS at this point. We would consider open source in 3-4 years, once initiatives such as Folio have reached their potential. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We also use a VuFind discovery layer for our catalogued and special collections resources (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Due to lack of support from our internal IT Services, we have been unable to improve usage of the ILS. We would like to be able to restore the online catalogue to its previous state where students can do more independently. However we are restricted by not having access to the server and not having a technician available to do the work for us. (Library type: Library Personnel; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our [...] -group is changing the web-library Arena to Finna-based [...] -Finna in early 2022 (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

From a systems perspective, the Ex Libris products undramatically deliver what we need. With several years experience of one of the closest competitor products, I cannot imagine that another off-the-shelf LMS can come near its functionality in today's marketplace. We have no staff who could support an open source option, and, in the past, have had difficult experiences maintaining open source offerings once the initiating staff member has left. Our institutional ethos always tries to avoid open source and bespoke offering, based on many past experiences. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Is this library currently considering migrating to a new automation system?: Yes. But in many single steps over a long period of time. Starting with ERM in Folio. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have just changed our SIGB in october 2021. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Media Flex is a wonderfully supportive company. They are always prompt to respond to inquiries or issues, and were proactive in developing and rolling out a self-reserve feature during the 2020-21 remote learning school year that kept many of the school libraries in our region up and running. There are some parts of the OPALS product that could be improved, but overall it is well worth it for the price. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We do not have graduate students at our institution and there was no way to reflect that in my answer (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

If the program registration component was updated and more robust this would satisfy our overall needs much better. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are happy with our current system but we would like to join a consortium which is on a different system (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We do not have the staffing to implement an open source ILS (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

My only complaint has to do with cost. We have been a SirsiDynix customer since we automated in the early 90's. Thirty years worth of cost increases means that we pay significantly more than our peer institutions who are also SirsiDynix customers- practically double from what I can gather. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have been using Koha with support from LibLime for about 12 years. During the past year we explored various ILS options from a variety of companies. We finally settled on Follett Destiny LMS and proposed the migration from Koha. The proposal was accepted and we are in the midst of the migration now. Our hope is that the Follett Destiny LMS will give our patrons much more access to both the print and electronic collections as well as the ability to create their own collections of resources for units of instruction. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are not really satisfied with our ILS vendor, but since we're part of a consortium, we're stuck with what the majority votes for. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Generally, the service is fine, but...frustrating when it doesn't work. The company is pretty good about getting on problems and fixing them, though. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are a consortium office. We have a vendor contract for support, but do most support for libraries ourselves or be reaching out to colleagues that run the Evergreen open source ILS at other consortia. We find these questions tricky to answer because of this position. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Functionality is good, but the lack of attention to details is staggering, with a cumbersome voting process to make even the most obvious minor UX corrections. It should not take a vote of the users, a product review... to fix something that can be done with one click, like returning the cursor to the search box when there is no match, or sorting a hit list with the newest items first instead of last. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We moved from Sierra to Koha this year. Koha is much cheaper and easier to use. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We use Koha. Answers related to vendor etc is about server hosting and Koha support from an independent consultant company. (Library type: Music; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are a part of a state consortium, and can only get what the consortium offers. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Where our consortium goes, so goes our library. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are members of the [...] , which has sent out an RFP for the ILS. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Additional charges for some items seem excessive - but it's how LMS vendors make their money! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Fantastic support but bad mobile version of catalog (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are already Koha users. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Moving trom the Polaris ILS to Evergreen would be a consortium decision, not something [...] Library would be able to do on its own. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We just went fully automated in July 2021. We are still in the process of adding all of our materials into the system, but so far, it is doing exactly what we need it to do. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have open source. Love the price. Works well except reports module is overly complicated. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I have been working in public libraries for 30 years. Of all the ILS companies I have worked with, Biblionix has the most responsive customer service I have ever encountered. Small problems are resolved the same day, medium problems within a few days, and large problems within a few weeks. In comparison, other ILS vendors struggle to resolve issues, if they are resolved at all. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We migrated to Atriuum in August 2021, which we were heavily involved in the migration because Polaris would have charged us a hefty fee to migrate things over. We were fortunate to have our server in house and we could run reports to upload. The process and information requested was not as straight forward and there were some communication errors, which led to a less than stellar migration. We're still learning the new system and although we're happy with the cost, we are still trying to get use to the new-ness and feel a bit overwhelmed with some of the differences from Polaris. I don't think my review of Atriuum is quite fair to give at this point considering we're only 3 months in. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We already use Koha and Aspen, and are happy with them. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We don't have the technical expertise on the staff at present to support an open source ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We use Aspen now and live it (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The library information systems and content market is dominated by oligopolies (as with many other economic sectors) and "open source" systems are not by themselves going to save libraries from the downsides of this reality. Current trends in open access demonstrate how effective the largest for-profit vendors are at co-opting and shaping "open" movements to ensure their continued benefit. When its acquisition of Ex Libris is finalized, Clarivate will dominate the academic library systems market, with OCLC maintaining lesser market share and Ebsco exercising control over FOLIO as its driving force, supplying funding, logistics, hosting and integration with its content and discovery layer. Libraries concerned by this development need to consider the values that motivate them to support "open" movements and act in a concerted manner according to those values. That requires building community, but the economic downturn putting pressure on libraries in public, academic and school sectors is a strong disincentive to working together or accepting short term, individual sacrifices for a long-term, collective good. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Staff and I were disappointed in the system overhaul earlier this year; while some changes were appreciated, the majority of changes made using the system more difficult. In particular, the call number and item status isn't available on the search results, meaning we have to click on each individual result to get the necessary information. This has proven very frustrating for staff when trying to find items for patrons. I was told this was an error with the new system, not a feature, but I'm wondering if it can actually be fixed given how long it's been since the change was implemented. We also frequently have problems with ILS being down or running slowly. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

There are many positive sides to Sierra which can be explained as reliable, customizable, and understandable. The systems servers are robust in the amount that they can process and rarely do we have outages. The system itself has been somewhat easy to understand and figure out. The manual is vast and explains most all of how things work, though every so often we are left questioning the support staff on how or why something is behaving not as expected. Some features are lacking further customization such as SMS notifications, or the Item category A—D which is how the system limits the groups of items and their total checkout. For the most part, the system allows us to manage our database of materials and patrons wonderfully. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Chief drawback of Follett Destiny is a lack of ILL module. Indiana State Library developed the SRCS Indiana ILL system to enhance small library services, and in our case, SRCS will fill our largest services gap. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

MARC records very bad. New cataloging program is very bad, requires to many steps of importing/exporting, standing on your head, and not being able to take a poor record and edit as needed. If I have to spend more than 2 minutes on any record, something with program is wrong. I like old cataloging system, and if have to upgrade will find another vendor or use a typewriter. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

I work strictly from the support aspect of the software. I have worked with a few other ILS and find that, overall, Alma/Primo is a pretty good solution. That said, it's always amusing to me to hear people complain about their ILS. I obviously hear a lot of complaints about Alma/Primo since that is what I am currently supporting, but I hear others complain about their solutions as well. There is no perfect solution out there as far as I can tell. If there were, it would cost a fortune and no one would be able to afford it. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Seems there are often ILS issues at our library; we are constantly contacting IT support. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The response time for problems and questions is excellent whether it be on line or on the phone. We always speak with highly competent tech support personnel and if they are unsure of an answer they do investigate and get back to us as quick as possible. We are extremely happy with the support we receive. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Koha is used only to share paper copy documents. The Record of paper copy document is created into Dspace (Dpsace is the only Catalog we publicize), to inform users that the document exists. But we do not share or give access to Koha. Koha is use only for the internal services (to share an exemplar to a user (considering the category of user) and in the respect of the Lending Policy, so with the Calendar settings related to the category of user). *** Thanks to offer us to participate in your important work for us, the workers in libraries and Information Sciences! *** (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Anyone can see, modify, and distribute the code as they see fit. This is why I don't like Open Source. Open source has become a movement and a way of working that reaches beyond software production. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

As a law library, we have entered into an MOU with our main campus to migrated into a combined catalog, which will likely happen in 2023. (Library type: Law; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)

It would be really nice if TLC were more customizable -- the two most obvious issues are in report generation (only canned reports available, you can't write your own request) and in display of books with multiple copies (only a fixed order available, which is NOT convenient for students as non-circulating copies are listed before circulating ones) (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Still Happy with Koha as an ILS, and bywater solutions provides top notch customer service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We're very hopeful to move to a cloud-hosting ILS as soon as possible, as we are currently running on old servers. We are also disappointed in the cashiering integration options provided by most ILS vendors and would like to see an ILS with a functional built-in cashiering system that can take and process payments instead of these "commerce modules" that seem to be the rage but that don't actually process or integrate with any other systems without massive backend development required. Open source would appeal to us more if it didn't appear to be so time-intensive, as we are a small library without a dedicated ILS team. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We needed a more affordable fully-Cloud alternative to CS/TextWorks, having formed the view that InMagic / Lucidea were no longer actively supporting the smaller (one-person) library market. We looked at many alternatives, including library-ready systems and the possibility of customising relatable database software that could reside on our Intranet. However we realised that we lack the resources (time, expertise, budget) to customise anything. Simple Little Library System (SLLS) emerged as the standout product that met all of our needs - particularly for its scalable pricing (80% saving on what we had been paying). It also has two features that we need: (1) the ability to add hierarchical subject taxonomy and (2) the ability to attach full text files (for our own publications). We were able to do the conversion to SLLS without extensive support or training - we paid a very reasonable set fee for assistance with record migration. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Actualmente, desde la biblioteca estamos estudiando la opciones de hacer una migración a otro SIGB, para la gestión de la biblioteca virtual. Pero como es un proceso que va a llevar tiempo, de momento seguimos trabajando con Digibib y es una de las empresas que también tenemos en consideración para las mejoras en el futuro. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The support staff as ESS work hard but the reliability of the service has been very variable and Capita's (the former owner) legacy seemed to be a totally inadequate investment in development; many promised features and improvements have not materialised and in some cases these were promised years ago. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We're part of large, state supported consortium in Ohio, so we can't switch vendors without considerable planning and buy in from all stakeholders. If we were a standalone library, I likely already would've switched to an open source solution. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have very recently upgraded to the web-based version of our current ILS. We are very satisfied with this upgrade, but it is new to us and we are still discovering what works for us and what doesn't. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Ideally, the library would use Koha to join a regional consortium of libraries. There is no budget or staff time for this migration even under consideration. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

[..] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] is a member of the [...] Consortium. In 2021, the member libraries underwent a reprofiling process with Polaris. This, in essence, was as though we started new with Polaris. The consortia environment makes any relationship with an ILS vendor complicated and [...] is no exception. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

One of the difficulties to implement an open source ILS will be the lacking of in-house expertise. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We purchased our ILS from Polaris, and we enjoyed doing business with them. We are less happy with Polaris since they have been acquired. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

As a federal academic library, we are not permitted to use open source products, so we cannot consider implementation of an open-source ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

At this point we are looking for our consortium to provide support for our ILS platform. Ease of resource sharing is very important to our consortium. Our current vendor is unsurpassed at this function. Because it is now owned by a company that also owns another ILS (leading to concerns about long term support), our consortium is undertaking due diligence to explore options. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We only adopted the Koha ILS because we were able to contract with the [...] for hosting services and ongoing technical support in conjunction with migration services by Bywater. In addition, our ILS installation is part of the [...] consortial Koha implementation with a shared catalog. This arrangement provides us with additional avenues of support and consultation with regular meetings of member libraries organized around [...] special interest groups, e.g., tech services, library directors, etc. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We were concerned about changes in support when ProQuest acquired III but support has remained excellent. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

TLC has been great to work with so far, they have great customer service. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

La biblioteca forma parte de una red, las decisiones sobre SIGB y otros aspectos relacionados no dependen del personal que aquí trabaja ni tampoco se tienen en cuenta sus opiniones ni las particulares características de este centro (Library type: Archive - Special Collections; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

FOLIO is a new LSP and are therefore still lacking some important functionality and has areas in need for improvement, thus it is hard to rate using the scale provided. Since FOLIO is rapidly developing, bugs are of course found. Nevertheless, it generally works well for print circulation and especially well for ERM. We have had no downtime since implementing more than a year ago. The main issue for us is the poor user experience for patron functionality in EDS, mostly due to the outdated EDS UI. We are looking forward to the new EDS UI in 2022 and hopet his will improve the overall happiness with the integration FOLIO-EDS, otherwise we will have to re-think discovery solution. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Over the last year we implemented the Koha Carousel for e-books which looks very professional. PTFS Europe provide helpful support helped advising on the Carousel, have helped with SQL reports when hit blind spots and have explained why some facets do not display in search results. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Excellent program. Good staff. Patient and helpful. Very satisfied. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are changing our discovery tool from Summon to Primo because our library is in the [...] and that Consortium universities are using Primo Discovery. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Alma and PrimoVE are still pretty new to us. That said, staff have been pleased with the interface, and functionality. The emphasis on workflow versus item status is a different way of viewing the work, but is more reflective of library processes. Once everyone became comfortable with that shift, they haven't looked back to our prior system. RE: discovery...there are some features that we haven't used yet (like creating a collection) that we intend to use in the future. Patrons and staff appreciate the browsable shelf visual feature. RE: support...we've appreciated the extensive documentation from Ex Libris that is available (easily discoverable and searchable online). Our help requests are handled by [...] Library Services (they managed the migration for the 40 [...] colleges and universities). [...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We were forced to get Alma/Primo through a consortial purchase and it is much more complicated than our small library needs. 1.5 years into Alma, we still have not activated the acquisitions/cataloging modules due to staffing shortages, and the Alma analytics is much more complicated than we need for supporting budgeting and acquisitions decisions. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

[..] is a public library that mainly serves the [...] community, thus the section for academic libraries may not apply 100%. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Voyager is largely working well for us despite its somewhat dated nature. We feel its age most strongly when it comes to integrating with other systems, e.g. setting up patron log-ins for an eAudiobook service we recently subscribed to. We've also recently found Voyager's patron purge, export, and import systems somewhat buggy (though nothing we couldn't get past). We are a couple versions behind, however, so these issues may be fixed in the current release. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

With ever-tightening budgets, it is increasingly difficult to afford a system like Alma or even WMS if you are a larger single-institution library. Very much looking towards Folio. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We use Koha (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Could not answer "Where does this library direct most of its ILS support issues" -- all support is internal to our organization. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

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 (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our support is through a third party in the UAE. It is not an effective relationship. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

E-aineistoa ei hallinnoida kirjastojärjestelmän kautta. Käytössä on jo avoimen lähdekoodin kirjastojärjestelmä (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

FOLIO is in use. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have been using Evergreen in various versions since 2014. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

SirsiDynix has been our ILS vendor for over 15 years. The people are wonderful to work with. The biggest complaint is this: when SirsiDynix develops a new feature, e.g.: web based client for WorkFlows, "Data Control", or mobile staff clients, they require their loyal customer base to pay more money for these new developments as add-ons. This functionality keeps their product relevant in a changing technology landscape. To be required to pay even more from ever dwindling budgets seems out of step with the current realities faced by academic libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

For the question that asked if we would work with our ILS vendor again, we would have loved to answer 0. However, this company has bought up all of the ILS products that our public library consortium is willing to consider, so it appears we would have no choice. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

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. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

While we were closed because of the pandemic, we used APIs provided by open source providers like HathiTrust and Internet Archive to mimic the functionality of discovery layers by inserting URLs of freely-available ebooks into our bib records. (Library type: Museum; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are very happy with the FRBR catalog. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Happy with everything about our current ILS except their online catalog -- it's not mobile friendly and very dated and the mobile app is terrible so we don't even use it. We may start shopping for a new ILS soon if they don't improve the patron end of their product. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are interested in moving off Voyager to Alma, but we are still not convinced that the costs of implementation and higher annual fees will pay off in benefits. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The [...] libraries are currently in the process of migrating to FOLIO. Only one is currently on FOLIO but we are planning to move more over the next several years. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

There has been a perceived shift by our provider, over time, toward a less collaborative and more vendor-like approach which has eliminated one of the primary reasons this provider was selected initially. The provider, in some regards, appears to be a barrier to successful operations through less focused activities, increasing already high fees, and contributing to a widening disparity between libraries and functionality of systems through tiered approaches and less common benefit. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

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. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We considered Folio in our ILS migration (completed this year), and would consider it and other open source ILS options again the next time we consider migrating. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our main libraries are going to Folio, so we may follow sometime in the future. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

[..] (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)

The vendor is extremely supportive and provides quick responses to inquiries and technical support needs. The only thing lacking is a modern, responsive mobile interface for interactions with the ILS and its users, both in reference to the union and building catalogs. The ability to customize the front page of the ILS is useful, cataloging is easy, and it's very easy to understand how to configure and manage collections. For any school looking to have a straightforward, WYSIWYG ILS, I can't recommend the product more solidly. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are researching the benefits of moving to TLC's CARL environment. Preliminary stages only right now. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

My college does not have undergraduate students. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

[..] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Currently, our library leadership is not ready ready to consider ANY change in our major systems - ILS, discovery service, authentication service, etc. When and if that changes, I will be recommending that we explore open source options that can be hosted by a vendor like Bywater. The fact is that our library staff is too small to make effective use of all the features and functionality that Alma and Primo offer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

We are in the process of moving from Horizon to Symphony, so it's not quite right to say we're considering it. We are 2/3 of the way migrated across with it. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We did not use any vendor in our migration and implementation of Koha. We did it all in-house. Through out the process we have had a lot of co-operation and help from the Koha community. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are part of a consortium, which, while having benefits, also constrains our choices on the matter of choosing our ILS and discovery platform. We have participated in the RFP, purchase and configuration process for the consortium, but we do not have sovereign control over our individual institution, as the money and ultimate contracting authority comes from a consortium central office. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

I have less than a year of experience at this library and using (cataloging in) Sierra. I find Sierra not to be very usable. The help manual and training are generally a waste of my time. It seems like there should be more robust global editing options than are available as well. I'm also generally impressed with eds' coverage. It should be easier to limit resources (in admin) by language. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

We would like to see added functionality in acquisitions and the advanced cataloging interface. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Is the discovery portion of this survey for public libraries and public library systems? I ask because it lists undergraduates and faculty. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

A main concern of ours is that most, if not all, school library circulation systems need management capabilities to update or replace offensive and outdated subject headings and terms. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

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. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our ILS is provided and funded by our system (consortium). They make the decisions and they do all of the support for it. But, we are still very satisfied with it for our needs. Also, we don't have any electronic resources in our library, but N/A was not an option to answer that question. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

What I love about The Library Corporation is their customer service. They are so responsive to needs and issues that arise and I don't have to worry about all the back-end particulars of the ILS. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are a very small library & very happy with Apollo & Biblionix. We depend on our partnership with TSLAC for IT recommendations. We would not independently change any of our current products. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our electronic (ebooks and audio books) are managed by Nebraska Library Commission and Overdrive. In order to have the electronic sources included in our catalog we would have to pay an extra fee. We chose not to do this becuse of the cost. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Regarding implementation of Open Source ILS, would require cost/benefit analysis of required local development and maintenance work, which is a bit of an unknown without further product context. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Of course, every institution has their A-list staff that go out of the way to highly perform to give excellent customer service. However, Innovative has gone through many organizational changes and it isn't as well-oiled as it used to be. A few upgrades/migrations that used to be a blip in our day are now resulting in several days of downtime to find errors made. Disheartening and very frustrating for staff and patrons alike. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

This migration process and getting to know the vendor revealed unexpected surprises in areas of business ethics and unfulfilled promises and was overly laborious and complicated for the task at hand. The system is functional with little downtime. Ongoing support is quite variable; sometimes months go by without resolution to open tickets and sometimes the things we'd like to do we're told are not possible, despite us later achieving them on our own. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

All our computer services run through our county IT department, which is not likely to approve an open source ILS since they are seldom if ever open to open source products of any sort. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are already using an open source system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We did consider open source ILSes in our search for a new system; however, there was not one that fit our requirements. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 0)

We are part of a 23 library consortium and we share our union catalog. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Además del SIGB Koha, estamos migrando los datos de los Documentos Oficiales de la ALADI a un repositorio con DSpace. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

At this point I wouldn't consider open source, as the library and IT staffing levels cannot accommodate a project of this size. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

If we switched to an open source ILS product, we would do so via a vendor since we do not have the staff to implement this on our own. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

N/A (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our library requires only very basic functions and features. However, it would be nice if the ILS included more flexible editing features. (Library type: Other; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Very impressed with Summon. We recently switched from EDS. TLS is reliable and relatively inexpensive, but very basic. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We're very happy with Koha and proud to be an open source library. Unfortunately, our institution has merged with a university that does not use open source products. It is very likely that we will be forced to migrate away from Koha, though that decision has not been made yet and may not be made for another year. We do need to move away from EBSCO Discovery due to the unsustainable subscription cost and plan to switch over to WorldCat Discovery by summer of 2022. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

I like our system in managing print resources, as well as searching options. I would prefer more options in editable reports. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

In answering the question of how effective the discovery service is to undergraduates, I rated it less effective because it can be a little overwhelming to students who have not used a discovery service before. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The [...] Library began its migration from EOS.Web to OCLC WMS in the fall of 2020 and rolled out its new OCLC Discovery catalog in February 2021. Our WMS implementation manager went above and beyond to assist us during the transition process, demonstrating creativity, persistence, and expertise. Since we have begun using WMS in earnest, library staff members have been consistently impressed with the level of efficiency WMS enables us to achieve in our work. After the library completed its migration, STScI administrators tasked the library to carry out a physical move within a restricted timeframe. Using the robust bulk functionality present within WMS (reassigning locations in bulk, weeding in bulk, etc), we were able to complete the move within the allotted time. The WMS Digby App was also useful to us throughout the library move. We cannot overstate how difficult it would have been to perform the same actions using our previous catalog . While our experience with WMS has been overwhelming positive so far, our biggest challenge has been with some aspects of OCLC customer service. We have experienced Customer Service representatives as knowledgeable and helpful on most day to day issues. However, we had a significant disconnect with Customer Service in that it took several months past the conclusion of our implementation to ensure that patron authentication integration was working smoothly. We asked repeatedly for Customer Service to have a phone call with our IT representatives so that problems could be worked out in real time, but there did not seem to be a willingness from OCLC to work in this format, with the result that problems lingered an unreasonably long time. Thankfully we have now reached a resolution, but the experience was extremely frustrating. Notwithstanding, we see ourselves settled as WMS customers for the next 5+ years, continuing to learn to take advantage of WMS's efficiencies while keeping an eye on the LSP market as well. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

None. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

At this time the library is satisfied with the LIS that we are using (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Sierra ticket resolution is spotty. Sometimes tickets are resolved very quickly; sometimes tickets take forever to solve. It seems like maybe they are short-handed and if the long-time, knowledgeable support representatives are swamped, then newer, less knowledgeable staff members are handling tickets that they are not equipped to solve. I’ve had to escalate several tickets to finally get them handed over to senior representatives. Our migration from an onsite server to a hosted cloud server and upgrade from Millennium to Sierra went fairly smoothly. We were given a good price break to go hosted and upgrade. Innovative even threw in about a dozen extra modules in a package deal. The installation of the add-on modules was messy, protracted, and frustrating. The software migration timing was planed well ahead, and we were consulted as to the scheduling. However, with the new module bundling, we were not consulted at all ahead of time how the installation of modules was to be scheduled. It was planned without consultation and without consideration of how we, as the customer, would have time to complete our tasks. It was planned solely on how fast the implementation team could install things. While our trainer was an expert and very patient and responsive, training for several modules happened simultaneously making it more difficult to learn and confusing. There was no time to practice our training, because we immediately had to move on to the next module. The most frustrating part was being given outright wrong information by the systems engineer who was obviously very inexperienced and maybe should have been under closer supervision by a senior engineer. SDA is very slow in connecting to the hosted server; however, other users report the same slowness. The web version of the backend client does not have all of the capability of the desktop app. SMS notices are kind of clunky and have limited customizability. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

SirsiDynix have a new pilot product called Cloudsource+ which will incorporate their new CloudSourceOA product (an add on which provides access to open source material) as well as being able to include subscription ejournals and packages. This may become our primary discovery product. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We investigated Koha, but we don't have the technical staff in the library to customize and maintain it. We would need to pay third party to do this (we don't have the budget to do this as a stand-alone system) or join a library consortium that would maintain it for us (we decided against joining a local academic consortium as we want more control of the system than a consortium would allow us and we don't have the staffing to be able to take on the consort work that would have been required of us). Koha out-of-the box didn't provide the streamlining or improved/additional functionality we were looking for other than being cloud-based. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Kudos to Marshall for the info., service and support he helps provide to libraries, and has over the years! Thank you! (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

While we are aware of the implications that COVID has had overall, we are experiencing increased frustration with the delayed vendor response for support. For example, ticket opened a year ago and still waiting for resolution from vendor. The vendor is responsive to having a Provincially-based User Group for Ontario customers. We like the changes that the vendor has made to the ILS and Library Catalogue interfaces/functionality. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Print Collection has 62,637 units. Digital Library Collection has 138,773 units. Our ILS only catalogs the print material, one Digital Library service (Overdrive) integrates with the public discovery platform. The rest of the Digital Library services are linked on the website, but patrons have to open each one to search for content. That is our biggest frustration with our ILS vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

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 (e.g., FOLIO is the best candidate currently). (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Regarding Open Source Considerations: we are already on an Open Source ILS and are satisfied with the experience. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We already use an open source ILS - Evergreen through [...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Overall I appreciate how much functionality I receive for a much lower cost - as I am part of a consortium. There are some things that are very frustrating - reports are a good example. However, I have way more features - auto renewal, automatic notices, text message notices, etc. than I could afford with another system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I love the community and customization that come with using an open source ILS. Instead of a "make it work" mentality, we have the more constructive "how can we make it better?" approach. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are in the process of migrating to the [...] shared catalog, which is currently Sierra. Our go-live date is 1/6/2022. Library.Solution served us well for many years, but we were very unhappy with their decision to hide some MARC fields in the cataloging template in version 5.x, and we are also very unhappy with LS2PAC's lack of authority control. (LS2PAC does not make use of see also or see from references.) We stayed with version 4.x and classic PAC as long as we could, but our local IT department's requirements have forced us to either upgrade to version 5.x and LS2PAC or migrate to a different system. We opted to migrate. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Alma is needlessly complicated for our library and is a poor fit. Where our last ILS took two steps to do anything, in Alma is takes ten. That's in each the modules: acquisitions, cataloging, analytics, etc. The search is poor because it gives the patron everything and anything, drowning out what the patron is actually looking for. The patron-side, Primo, displays records with all sorts of fields a patron would never be interested in, so it looks cluttered. ExLibris' customer service can be decent but is sometimes poor. They were never able to tell me what fields were searched in certain types of searches, and I'm still waiting for them to fix one aspect that hasn't been working for going on eight months. I haven't heard one staff member say anything good about Alma, except that it has the capability for us to work from home. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

We recently migrated in January of this year [2021] from Polaris/Innovative to Symphony/SirsiDynix. We are still learning, but find that the new system is easier to use. One main criticism I have of both is the necessity to make an added purchase to have a useful tool for generating reports. Polaris does allow the use of SQL but Symphony does not. Polaris sells Simply Reports, which I found very usable. We still have not purchased Bluecloud Analytics from SirsiDynix, so cannot make a direct comparison. I am now using Symphony WorkFlows reporting tools, which are much better than Polaris' canned reports. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Koha has been our system since 2018, due to severe technical problems with ALEPH500, in January 2018 our server expired (electrical and hardware problems). Our library has limited budget, so the best option was and still is open source. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Michael Sweeny is an AMAZING customer service representative. This is my first year in charge of the library at our school. He was the one to help train me, show me the ropes and answer all of my questions. He is very knowledgeable, kind and patient. If it weren't for Mike, my job in the library would be so frustrating and difficult. Mike is one of the friendliest customer service reps I know. Clarifications: I wasn't sure what "open source considerations" was referring to so I left it blank. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

This collection doesn't have any electronic resources. Since N/A is not an option, I used 0 instead on the question pertaining to the ILSs effectiveness in managing our electronic resources. (Library type: State; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] currently uses Aspen discovery layer with support from Bywater, LLC. In general we would rate the quality of service and efficacy of the product an 8. We manage most of our electronic resources in the discovery layer as opposed to the ILS - which has been excellent. [Explains why we did not answer question "How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources?" in the ILS survey above.] (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

I am part of a statewide college system as well as a statewide library consortium. I have no contact with our ILS vendors, only our college system IT and state library systems support staff. I am not satisfied with the ILS we have, and I don't like that most of our e-Resources are not integrated into it, but there is little I can do about it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are part of a consortium, so any changes that are made must be made with consideration of our participation in the consortium. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Polaris as an ILS is solid and the development of the web app (Leap) is great. ILS support personnel are great, but the Innovative leadership sometimes seems to overpromise on capabilities while charging too much for what they deliver. Sales personnel seem ignorant/untrained/confused on occasion. Innovative as a company seems allergic to open impromptu dialog with customers, preferring to only interact in curated ways without addressing questions that they haven't vetted beforehand. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Biblionix has been great to deal with. They also are constantly working on ways to make their product better. We recently started a Consortium of 5 libraries in Maine using Apollo and Biblionix has been responsive when working out details. We prefer to stay with them instead of joining Minerva but they will need to make their software compatible with joining Minerva in order for us to be part of the bigger Consortium in Maine.I know the Maine State Library/Maine Infonet plan on using federal funds to bring more libraries together and we want to be a part of it. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our support is through a third party in the UAE. It is not an effective relationship. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

we are in a consortium - if consortium switches ILS vendors that could be the major factor for our site. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

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 . Our membership in the Sitka consortium has been a great experience. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are very happy with our current ILS. It serves the needs of the library patrons and library staff efficiently. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are currently very frustrated with TLC. We waited years to upgrade to their newly revamped Library.Solution so that major bugs could be worked out before we got there, but have found post-upgrade that there are a lot of issues that were not fully revealed to us before upgrading. The biggest issue is that they have removed the ability to directly edit MARC records, and their new system (which is a good idea, just not at the expense of editing directly) is not fully functional. For instance, if we want to change the format of an item, we are instructed to export the MARC record, use a third-party software that TLC does not support to edit it, then re-import. A one-digit change to the record has now become a 20-minute hassle. The worst part is that TLC doesn't seem to see this as an issue and insists that this lack of full functionality is "to be expected." There are a lot of other problems with Library.Solution but this is the biggest, most problematic one. We are strongly considering a migration, though it will be a significant challenge due to our understaffing situation. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

We already use an open-source ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The choices we made in 2016/2017 we may not make now, though we aren't looking now. We are in a consortium with academic and special libraries, so a compromise was made to meet member needs. We are currently considering various products as potential solutions for a new architecture for our repository of [...] Government publications. Alma Digital is one of four possibilities that has bubbled to the top so far. (Library type: Special; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

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. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Excellent batch processing capabilities; very responsive customer service and ticketing system; excellent help from Martha Rice Sanders (Library type: Theology; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

I have a hard time knowing if NISO is reliable or not because there are a number of industry administrators/staff on the board. I do not like how ExLibris deliberately use business terminology instead of library terminology, it seems like they do not care that their customers are librarians and archivists. I also detest the constant eroding away of libraries ability to work cooperatively with each other, for example Ex Libris took away the ability to directly export/import bib records via the OPAC, even though they are the 'creation' of librarians and not Ex Libris. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

III's Support for emergencies is satisfactory. Support for questions about the system can take much, much longer than desired, depending on the workload of your assigned support person. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

For "How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources?" The system may be more effective than marked on, but we don't use it for our electronic resources. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

As we are a part of a consortia, we follow their lead in choosing an ILS and discovery systems. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Alma/Primo is a robust and highly customizable product for large libraries, but we are a medium-sized institution. Given our shrinking enrollment and shrinking budget, we have decided to move to something cheaper and simpler to use--WMS. We were disappointed that Ex Libris did not try to negotiate a better price to keep us a customer, despite our loyalty and many years as an Alma library (and many more as a Voyager library). They seem to believe that a 5% increase every year is sustainable for an ILS that costs 5% of our total budget. Ex Libris ought to reconsider their pricing model for smaller/medium sized institutions or develop a cheaper, more basic ILS for those customers. We didn't need half of the tools of ALMA due to our size and limited resources. I have a feeling many of us medium-sized institutions are going to be seeking cheaper pastures, too. After all of the work and time and customization we put into Alma, it was a difficult decision to leave. Now that we are nearly through a migration to WMS, I now realize how much we needed a simpler, more basic system. A library should never be in a position to sacrifice resources for a resource management system, and we were nearly there. I would consider moving to an open source system next time if they can guarantee us that any development could be handled by a support team (as we lack the professional staff needed to customize/develop/maintain those systems). (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have been with Bywaters for two separate migrations, leaving a consortium, and then joining another one. Each time Bywaters has been patient with us, and has made a complex migration into an easy to follow model. Their customer service is amazing, and koha and Aspen are even more so. Our patrons have enjoyed the ease of use, as well as our staff. We are very pleased with our ILS, and the continual improvements are just icing on the top. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We've had OPALS since 2009 and MediaFlex is a phenomenal company! They are quick and courteous. We've never encountered a problem that couldn't quickly be remedied. OPALS is great for our needs! (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

While the idea of an open source ILS is appealing, we do not have the staffing or knowledge to run one effectively. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

As a member of a consortium, we do a considerable amount of legwork on support tickets prior to submitting them to our vendor. I feel this helps to solidify a good relationship with our vendor, smooth the support path, and also helps us better understand how our systems operate. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The decision to change ILS comes with the ending of a private school consortium that had a contract with Sirsi. The contract is over, so each school in the consortium is now free to select their own ILS for 2022-23 academic year. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)

We don't manage electronic resources with Koha so my response to that question doesn't really mean anything. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The Ex Libris User Community is quite active and wonderfully collaborative and supportive. Working in Alma often feels very inefficient, because screens consistently take a long time to load, such as the Metadata Editor (MDE). Routine processes behind the scenes (such as CDI updates) often run very slowly, sometimes taking days to complete and delaying local process jobs. There are many great things about Alma and Primo, but it does feel like they are over-stretched at times, both in terms of computer processing and in well-trained support staff and documentation. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have officially finished our FOLIO implementation (we went live June 1 and mostly wrapped up the e-resources portion this fall). Going forward we will be moving away from CORAL and using FOLIO exclusively for e-resource management. However we have yet to decide on a date to cutover from one system to another. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We have a fairly large collection of digital objects associated with our historical collection. Bibliovation does a good job of integrating these digital objects into the general search. Our agency mandates that all applications sit in the government cloud, and this inhibits the use of several other ILS options. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are a very long-term client of MediaFlex/OPALS and have nothing but excellent things to say. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

OPALS by Mediaflex is fantastic. Has all the bells and whistles you need, and the customer service team is so fantastic and responsive to the ever-changing needs of a school library. So happy I switched to OPALS as soon as I transferred into this school! (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The support we receive from MeidaFlex is astounding! The staff is quick to answer any questions or resolve and issues we are having. They offer suggestions to improve our library interface and help us to implement them. I love the newsletter and updates that are sent on a routine basis. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] is a network and its members use different types of discover services like EDS or Summon, and other do not use one at all. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We appreciate OPALS and MediaFlex endlessly! Absolutely WONDERFUL to work with! I recommend your service/company constantly! Thank you.... (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We continue to be very pleased with OPALS product and especially their service. Thank you! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

This question is confusing.... "Would the library consider working with this company again if it were to migrate to a new system in the future?" Does this mean if OPALS changes it's system, would I continue to work with them? Or does it mean if I go to another system, would I continue to use OPALS for support? I'm not sure what Open Source is even though I googled it. Since I don't know what it is, I put a number close to not likely. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Interest in FOLIO would increase if it implements multi-tenant consortial functionality. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

Excellent product, affordable, and outstanding customer service. We are a genealogical library staffed only by volunteers. The "staff," our members, and patrons love OPALS. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our system would struggle with staffing to support an open source ILS. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

I'm unsure of what we should count for number of items in library's collection. Is this all item records only in the ILS? Or do we include Overdrive records, Hoopla, etc. that are in our discovery layer Pika, but not in the ILS? (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are coming to the end of our licensing cycle, therefore our process is to re-evaluate our current library system (RFP) (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

I was previously the ILS administrator for the county co-op just after the migration to Symphony in 2016. I left in 2018 to work in an academic library with III products. The difference in support was night and day, Sirsi is far superior. I left academia to help implement Symphony (and other products) at the MBRL in Dubai, UAE with Naseej, Sirsi's vendor in the Middle East. The ease of integrating other resources such as self check, gates, autostore and the like with Symphony was outstanding. I'm again at a public library in Florida using the same instance of Symphony I administered (without the obligation to admin anything) and I couldn't be more pleased with the ILS. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

EOS is excellent handling email newsletter distribution. It's a solid choice for management of print materials -- but electronic resource management could use improvement. The OPAC is built on older technology -- but is improving. Overall a decent choice for private law libraries. (Library type: Law; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We may seriously consider an open source platform in the future, however, other considerations, including lack of staffing prevent that now. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We changed in 2020 from Polaris to Koha. We are very pleased with the change. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are using Equinox now! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have looked at other systems, however, there are trade-offs with whichever system you choose. Our main issue is the yearly maintenance fees, which seem to us to be unreasonable. However, if you choose a system with lower maintenance costs then we don't have as many bells and whistles. We haven't found a system that does what we want for a price that is enough of a savings to warrant the retraining of staff. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

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. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

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! (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our consortium's consideration of FOLIO is being motivated primarily by our largest member library, [...]. They are seeking a cost-effective platform that is flexible enough to handle an organization as varies as ours. [...] includes large academics, community colleges, regional systems with "One Horse Town" branches, and everything in between. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Regarding management of electronic resources, we have not engaged with any additional tools available to integrate/consolidate the management of those resources. Our scoring for the question regarding satisfaction in that area therefore reflects both the vendor implementation - this feature doesn't come along native to the ILS with no effort - and our own prioritization of this area which are influenced by budget, time required to investigate and the current consolidation of public library e-resources with fewer vendors. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We investigated the possibility to implement Folio in the near future but came to the conclusion that it is not yet fully developed to our needs, particularly for analytic purposes which we are heavily reliant on in our current system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We would like to see our electronic resources integrated with TLC. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We didn't answer the question about faculty use of Primo because we haven't done any UX testing yet on this group. As a community college library, we don't serve grad students. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We have used this system since 2006. The system now includes digital resources management, discovery searching, SSO and has added advance booking for the STEM resources we now manage, and they do not increase our service fees for substantially new functionality. Their technical support and tutoring services are outstanding. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I would like to point out that Alma and Primo are very powerful products that require a great deal of customization to work effectively. My feeling is that most open source solutions are similar. Most libraries have even less staff than money, and need effective out of the box solutions. If a consortium could provide all of the tech support necessary to keep an open source solution working, I would be interested. That is not the current set up. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

Interested in learning more about eResource Central (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Some of our users find Alma unwieldy. Because it has to be functional for so many libraries, simple functionality changes needed by this institution cannot be made without going through the whole enhancement process. This means that most minor changes requested by small institutions never get made. We also feel that the level of technical support has decreased as more products are acquired and developed by ProQuest/Ex Libris. We've seen Salesforce tickets sit without action for months. We do appreciate the chat function and have noticed that we get speedier assistance when going that route. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We recently implemented Primo VE and haven't had time for any formal usability testing or satisfaction surveys with our users. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The system meets all of our needs even with the need to adapt to pandemic operating circumstances. They developed applications to manage advance booking and curbside delivery services. Fantastic support staff. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have begun an ILS feasibility study to find the best ways to connect our local libraries. It's in the very early stages, so we are not considering products at this time. We are beginning by talking over considerations such as decision making, responsibilities, resource sharing, communications, and how best to proceed. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We only migrated to Alma in September 2021, so its early days in assessing the effectiveness of it. This has influenced our scoring. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The system is comprehensive and reliable. There are frequent updates. Training and technical support is very responsive. We are 6000 km from their offices, but they seem to be just down the street. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Worked in a library that used and loved OPALS. When I moved to a new school library and showed them this system this year, they approved the migration. Migration from the previous system was completed in a few hours! They also integrated single sign on and OPAC discovery searching of our digital information databases. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

OPALS has been our "bridge over troubled waters." (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are in the second group to migrate, so we are not on Aspen yet. We will be using Enterprise through March 2022, as consortia has chosen a phased implementation. I do not have opinions on Aspen at this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Awesome system and support! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We already use an open source ILS, Evergreen. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We use OPALS in 16 school libraries. OPALS service, is really an awesome Library Management System software, a dream for Libraries anywhere, and it is worth its weight in gold. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The system, support and sustainable fees are just right for this library, students and faculty. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have suggested new features that were done in a day or two. When we call for technical support, we reach a well informed, courteous technician who knows our name! Their database single sign-on and discovery search has been especially helpful during the pandemic. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We do not at this time have electronic resources cataloged in our current ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

The longterm plan is to implement Open Source. But we have to change system now, and Folio is not mature enough yet. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

OPALS provides reliable digital and print resources access to our Philippines students and faculty. The system is reliable and service is great. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We adopted OPALS this year. This is our first library automation system. A company librarian provided Zoom instruction for us to setup the system, the library webpage, and to catalog the library collection. So far, the experience has been positive. Our next step will be to implement their discovery search to access our information databases. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

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. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Customer service is great especially if you are platinum but important changes move very slowly and the system is not user friendly. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

Awesome service and system! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We've migrated to a national service plattform[...] which includes 470+ scientific libraries in [...] . We're in the process of consolidating workflows and governance processes- (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Have been using OPALS since 2005. The updates have kept pace with the changes over the past 16 years and recently helped us provide services during the pandemic. What has not changed is the exceptional technical support, that responds with answers, usually in less than half an hour, and often in minutes! (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We go live on Symphony on March 7, 2022. (Library type: State; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We've been extremely happy with Biblionix since we switched to them in 2017. They are always helpful when we have problems/questions; and our users seem equally pleased with the public side of the system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

An all round excellent system, support and professional development. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

This is an awesome integrated library management system. The integrated portal / content management options were especially helpful. They were an effective way of communicating our services and schedules to our students and faculty. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Already using open source (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Before upgrading to the newest version of this software, I would have probably given straight 9's. The new cataloging module needs some more tweaking and I'd really like them to reconsider their decision to take away our ability to edit records directly in MARC. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Most of our answers reflect our perception of how well Alma/Primo meets our needs as a member of a consortium of academic libraries that does a lot of resource-sharing and collaborative collection-building. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We have considered transferring our catalogue from EOS.web to Soutron Global. As we have explored more of what EOS.web has within the basic system, as well as its available add-ons, we find we are pleased with what EOS.web has to offer and are unlikely to change services, although we are exploring options for future reference. We are also in the process of committing to a 7 year agreement with EOS.web and possibly adding features to our contract in the future, depending on what resources we will need and items we will make available to our membership. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

As a special library we would like a 'Academic Discovery Service' integrated with SirsiDynix Enterprise but don't have the budget, therefore we are interested in SirsiDynix new product CloudSource Open Access. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

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. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

I have been working with SirsiDynix for the last eight years. Recently, I accepted the Technology Manager role here at [...] after our previous manager retired. The relationship and trust I have with the support staff made the transition much easier for our library system. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our previous 5-year user agreement with SirsiDynix expired on 10/31/2021. We spent the greater part of the past year researching ILS options and determining if we should move to another ILS vendor, and open source ILS or renew our agreement with SirsiDynix. Based on the attractive pricing for a 5 year contract and the inclusion of several new products that will work in conjunction with our ILS, including a mobile app and community engagement product, we decided to renew with SirsiDynix for 5 more years. So far, implementation of the new products has gone well and the support team has been very helpful. One area that definitely needs improvement is the discovery product and how our electronic resources are displayed there. We know that we have the option to add more of our electronic resources to our existing catalog, but doing so will effectively bury our physical holdings without having to a lot of back-end customization that our staff aren't prepared to handle. We have chosen not to add our electronic holdings to our public catalog at this time for that reason. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Their support staff are outstanding as is the system. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

No librarian in this building - no services provided (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Library has part time professional services (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

We chose to implement an open source ILS when we recently migrated from our previous Horizon ILS to the Koha ILS supported by ByWater Solutions. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Last year [...] conducted an ILS RFP. After reviewing the responses, [...] signed a new master agreement with SirsiDynix to remain on a locally-hosted install of their Horizon ILS, which we have . The new agreement has an initial term of 3 years, with two, optional, 1-year extensions. We're very pleased with Horizon, as it's the only ILS we found that can accommodate our large consortia set up. 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. 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. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Customer support is good with urgent issues but slow to respond on less than urgent. Print resources are managed fine for regular request and checkout type items. There is no provision in the system for those items that need a reservation to be picked up at a specific time. This would include items like Book Club Kits as well as non print items like digital projectors. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have had to ask for a lot of enhancements of the product, but the company has been very responsive. The migration was complicated by COVID, but they were responsive then as well. We love the completeness of this product that provides a website, CMS, digital collections management, and other pieces. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I'm only months into the post and found fashioning reports the most difficult part of managing this system. It's not intuitive and required (for me) a great deal of training to extract the relevant information from the system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

There is an email listserv associated with this product and it is often easier to reach out to other users to see if they've encountered a similar situation and if they have a workable solution. The response is usually a little quicker than going directly to the vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The vendor is very responsive and has a help desk. The price of the product is very good. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

It works well for our needs, although more report options would always be welcome (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our cultural community library started using OPALS in 2005. The system has enabled us to manage collection growth and diverse media formats and provide services to our community organizations and do so safely, even during the pandemic. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Aspen Discovery is a critical product coupled with Koha. It helps cover up catalog mistakes on the staff side and compiles similar title records together on the patron side to make things easy to find, including integration directly to OverDrive and hoopla. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our school library collection has evolved and while printed books continue to circulate, our catalog provides access to 43 databases, 24/7. The system's portal applications and mobile friendly app have been heavily used by our students and faculty during the pandemic. Remarkable how the system is updated with so many new features, without increasing our service fees! (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Had used OPALS prior to this new position. We especially like this year's advanced booking application update. Since the pandemic, faculty love being able to book the resources they need for their classes ahead of time, and we can ensure they will be ready for them or find substitutes when some are not. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The [...] Library uses Evergreen ILS via the [...] Consortium. We will communicate with [...] (usually through State Library/GHL) if there are any problems or questions with the ILS. As I've stated in the past, the consortium is very public library-oriented--hence, not compatible with a small, special library such as the [...] Library. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

OPALS is supported both through our regional library services cooperative and the Media Flex. They provide excellent support for this outstanding program. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our IT department doesn't consider open source and after the [...] experimentation with Linux it would be virtually impossible. Unfortunately, there are a lot of default settings and limitations we have found in Alma/Primo. It is not very user friendly for our new staff. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

This system meets our library management and library members' research and recreational reading needs. The system also manages our single sign on and integrated discovery search services that are used increasingly in our irregular in place and remote learning context. Service is competent, courteous and timely. They usually respond within 30 minutes or less. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Please keep scores confidential. (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 3)

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. (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We Like VERSO. The only thing I would like to see is to make it easier to find information.. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

A couple of years ago the Library was looking into a new LMS. Although a university library we share our LMS with the local public libraries and we were contemplating going independent. However in the end we all remained with the same vendor and moved to their new product, Spark. This offered us both a chance to become more autonomous, while still retaining a connection with the public libraries, and gave us an independent website for the product which we had not had previously. So overall we are quite satisfied with the result. When we were looking we did investigate Heritage Cirqa, Koha, 24/7 and EOS.web (Sirsi Dynix). (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Considering Discovery layer / interface (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have been live with Alma and Primo VE for less than 6 months. The scores given reflect the data migration and on-boarding period as well the months we have been live. Library staff are still getting used to the system after the previous ILS was in use for 25 years so lack of familiarity can affect satisfaction. It is too early to provide meaningful scores for the effectiveness of the discovery service for different groups of users e.g. undergrads, faculty members etc. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

SirsiDynix customer care is excellent. Their Symphony DataControl product is fabulous. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Glad we migrated. This is our library technology happy place! (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

OPALS integrates management of our digital and print resources and makes it easy for our members to access, reserve or authenticate access those resources. During the pandemic, there was an increased demand for ILL resources managed by our regional cooperative (uses OPALS union catalog ILL program). Finally, system service is the best we have ever experienced with any vendor. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We have just completed a full assessment of current ILS options and have selected Alma/Primo as our new solution. We are in the process of moving our data and implementing it, and expect to go live with it in June 2022. This certainly colored my responses to the above! Please let me know if you have any questions about my responses or our current situation. Thank you, Marshall! (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

Because I am part of a school district, I do not have direct control over the ILS I work with. Even if I wanted to move to an open-source ILS, I couldn't, because that is a district level decision. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are mid-implementation with FOLIO. Some apps are live and the remaining apps will go live summer 2022. We are finding it more and more difficult to work with EBSCO as the service provider, as they are not meeting all of our needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

There are few viable options for libraries of our size. We do appreciate the vendor we work with solicits feedback, engages with clients, and pursues system development. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Follett does have an academic discovery service, but it is not as robust and user friendly as EBSCO's EDS and others. Also, when we transferred our records from Horizon to Destiny, we allowed Follett to replace our brief records with "better" records. Unfortunately, the importer replaced with records for the same work but NOT the same edition. An example would be Plays by Anton Chekhov; woodcuts by Howard Simon; published in 1935 by The Three Sisters Press. The record selected by the Destiny importer is for a book with completely different plays (and ISBN number), published by Wordsworth Editions in 2007, is translated with an introductory essay by Elisaveta Fen, with an introduction by A.D.P. Briggs [not in the edition we own]. This is a problem as some patrons search our catalog remotely. If the records don't reflect what we own, then we are wasting the time of patrons and instilling doubt in the quality of the catalog. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

just started the job so still learning. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

[..] (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our library region has been with SirsiDynix since 1999. During that time, the company has managed to keep up with library needs and trends. The customer service improved greatly over the past few years in terms of quicker response and follow-up. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

[...] (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have relied on OPALS to manage our library for ten years. The system and customer support are outstanding. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

In evaluating open-source and commercial products alike, we look very seriously at sustainability (i.e. do we have the people and the skill sets to implement and maintain the system?) and interoperability. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

I am an elementary school librarian. Although we are not an academic library, our students are beginning to use Destiny to; search the catalog, write book reviews, put books on hold and do research for in-class work (2nd-5th grade mostly). I think they are ready for more. It really is a missed opportunity to assume that open source is only for academic libraries. How can library systems be an entre into learning coding, information literacy, etc.? If we had a system that was open source, they could learn some coding. We are a STEAM school so this is in keeping with our curriculum. Our present version of Destiny is... clunky. Even an update would be better. The check-in system not always stable, sometimes doesn't work well. I have a new computer so that isn't the problem. Anyway, something to think about. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

We've used OPALS for fourteen years. They update the program every year with changes we suggest, or to cope with special challenges we had to meet during the pandemic. One thing that has not changed is their courteous and competent technical support. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are in the process of migrating from Ex Libris Voyager to TIND ILS. As for open source ILSes, we would have loved to consider one, but there really aren't any on the market right now that meet most of our requirements. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

We still find a lot of problems with functionality or consistency because the ILS is not set up for a consortium like ours, but I would again say that the responsiveness of the customer service department is unparalleled. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

This is a reliable program that serves our research community well. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We use OPALS to manage and provide print, STEM resources & kits to school teachers and librarians in our district. Although we do not circulate to students directly, the district teachers use the advance booking part of the program to select desired resources and schedule delivery. The system even includes the district's courier delivery schedule, prints packing lists, and tracks returns. We have used this system since 2007 and the support, updates and product get top marks from us. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Regarding Destiny: New records provided by Destiny is often incomplete: reading levels and subjects related to a title are rarely included - this information is important when choosing titles for students needing to borrow books within their reading levels and/or subject related (especially when conducting research). Needs improvement. Also - Searching books by title more often than not do not give results reflecting what is in our entire catalog. I have often have to search changing the grammar of titles (Uppercase vs. lower case when typing entire titles), and often having to type a title several other different ways to find a particular title, lots of time wasted doing this. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

The figure I chose for number of items is all items in the ILS, which includes many e-resources in addition to physical items. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

This is the technology our cooperative uses to provide resource sharing, interlibrary loan services to 200+ school libraries in this region. It performs this function very well and is cost effective. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

I am new to Verso so I still have much to learn. The Verso support team has been very helpful with zoom classes and always answering my questions. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Cost is a real issue for us. Our contract with Ex Libris has increased exponentially and will continue to rise beyond our capability for payment. Competition in this arena is sorely lacking. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

This vendor has excellent, reliable customer service. my only issue with our ILS is with an ongoing cataloging issue where sometimes the items that are put in, do not stay recorded and need to be put into the system several times. it has been addressed and reviewed with, i believe, one of the developers, but it was unable to be determined exactly what the issue was, why it was happening, and exactly how to prevent it from continuing. solutions were offered, however, it does still happen to which they are aware, (albeit not as often). There are other services i'd like to see them consider expanding, such as more options in our electronic serices, customizable required information offered, depending on what each library requires for their specific library, extending letter combinations for barcodes along with numbers, a back button that takes you to the previous page, not to the very beginning page to re login (it kicks you out), which is a big issue, just to name a few things off the top of my head at this moment. for these reasons i didn't give the highest grades across the board. and again, i can't say enough about their customer service and technical support representatives. they are outstanding. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Verso programmers won't even investigate trouble tickets. If they had taken the two minutes to investigate the trouble ticket filed, they would have clearly seen the solution they provided was impossible. Now, there is a book on my reference desk that cannot be circulated and has been here since August 2021. They provide no timeline on when they will find time to fix their system. This is but one example. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 1)

Verso catalogue does not always find materials owned by this library, even when the exact title is provided. It often takes several attempts to find resources. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Generally speaking, the library is satisfied with WorldShare; however, there is some missing functionality, such as the ability to bulk change item statuses to Missing. Our biggest issue in 2021 was the noticeable decline in the quality of customer support by OCLC staff. When submitting tickets to OCLC, the support team generally does a decent job with answering questions that deal with basic system functionality. On the other hand, whenever we raised issues about new or upcoming system functionality with the Product Managers and Analysts during sessions such as Product Insights and Office Hours, we got the sense that our concerns didn't matter. For instance, we had a major issue with holdings records ahead of the Discovery modernization that required the intervention of our OCLC representative, due to an initial difficulty with getting anyone else to address the problem in a timely manner. (This issue wasn't present in Discovery v1.) In addition, it seemed to us that the KB re-architecture was implemented without any kind of testing or discussion with focus groups, and the Product team was resistant to answering any questions directed to them about their processes. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Nous apprécions le service et les mises à jour du programme. Le système nous permet de prêter efficacement plusieurs partitions musicales à des groupes orchestraux et de gérer notre collection de musique numérique. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

FWIW, our consortium always makes the distinction that we are on Primo VE and Primo was the old system used with Aleph. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We may consider an open source ILS in the future if the costs of SirsiDynix keep going up for everything we need. For example paying thousands of dollars more a year for a web service license in order for us to do development is not a way to make the boss happy. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Under Approximate number of items in the library's collection I have only included physical titles. This is does not include owned econtent, leased econtent, and open access econtent. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Small academic libraries usually do not have the staff expertise and/or time to effectively implement open source tools. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

OCLC customer service can be difficult to deal with. Their local holdings search for patrons in WMS is problematic at times. For example, we have a collection of volumes of books all with the same title but no matter how you search for them, they never show up. We've did title searches, keyword searches, etc. and the only way we can actually get them to show up in search results is by searching via OCLC number or the barcode that is on one of the items. OCLC seems just as baffled by this as we are and have struggled to offer solutions, which isn't the first time they've struggled to offer solutions to problems. Overall, OCLC has been very average in customer support and if it wasn't for the simplicity of having the ILL interface integrated right into our ILS interface, it would be a very average ILS and discovery system. Another issue that we've had with OCLC is their inability to explain cost breakdowns in our invoices or exactly what their products due when asked. The entire state of [...] has had this problem with them and the state library itself has found dealing with them aggravating because of this inability to clearly communicate the reason we "have" to pay for certain systems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

We already use an open source ILS (Koha). Super satisfied with it! (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

we do not have a library IT team to help with open source initiatives (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

These decisions made by our state consortium. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

[...] is currently implementing FOLIO. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are very pleased with the product developments from SirsiDynix. Their customer service is friendly and responsive. I appreciate their Library Resource Managers, who are former librarians, who help us integrate products and training. Our LRM does an excellent job of keeping me regularly informed. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Due to the size of our staff, we cannot afford to be an early adopter of FOLIO. However, once the product is more mature, we would be happy to have a look and ideally loosen some of the oligopolistic hold a few companies play in the market. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

At consortium level Alma have some components that must improve, records duplication between libraries or consortium and a better loan service to share items between patrons of different institutions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Library staff has been reduced in the last few years. There is no longer a technology specialist on the library staff. Working with IT outside of the library is very convoluted in this federal agency. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

SIRSI is just terrible. We cannot wait to switch (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

Koha, our ILS, is open source. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Individual consortia members may be interested in open source. [...] does not have infrastructure in place at this time to centrally provide services and support for an open source system. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

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. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Technically [...] doesn't have an ILS: we offer digital services and reference and instruction. [...] uses Alma to track Coconino patrons, who have access to physical collections at [...] library. Ex Libris built [...] a Primo installation, but it's been a bear of a project for me (I'm a solo librarian in charge of two other departments) to take on these last few years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I don't like that there are a lot of features that I can't access and there are several reports that I can't run including a better way to inventory my library collection. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

Our relationship with SirsiDynix is very good and their customer service and support it excellent. However, with our move towards digital services accelerating over the last two years, Horizon's technical deficiencies are becoming more pronounced. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Main concern with OpenSource ILS (Koha being the most popular) is a lack of knowledge and familiarity about working with Linux OS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are very happy with the service provided by [...] and Symphony, even though there are some aspects that are a bit "clunky" - but we have yet to find a system that is perfect! If another ILS is recommended by the consortium, we would investigate it. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are very small, and believe our consortium to be of great value. We could not afford the services without their help. Voyager by Innovative is scheduled via consortium (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are in the middle of a 2 year long migration from Sierra to FOLIO/EDS. The data has to be transformed into a completely different architecture. Coincidentally this is happening during COVID so working from home allows more time to study the software development process and contribute to FOLIO bug identification. For FOLIO, be prepared to learn all about Agile software development methods. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

It really comes down to budget and user-friendly services, but most importantly it's about the budget. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We're actually transitioning from a slightly customized iteration of Koha with a small independent IT com company to Bywater Koha. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have used a local installation of Voyager or 20+ years. A local system is no longer viable for us, and the older version we run is not fully supported, though some of the support staff have been great. The next generation of the same vendor's hosted systems are not cost-effective for us in both first-year and ongoing costs, and a local system is not supportable in our current IT environment. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

Some of the [...] libraries migrated to Koha. Other [...] libraries are continuing with Sierra. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are migrating to SirsiDynix Symphony in May 2022. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Biblionix goes far and above what a large company would do for its customers. Our library had several requests for implementation of somewhat unique features. Biblionix did them all for no charge. Our library considered SirsiDynix Symphony as an alternate ILS, the annual fee for Symphony was 4 times the Biblionix quote. The SirsiDynix quote for setup was more than 12 times the Biblionix quote. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are in the process of migrating to FOLIO as our new ILS with expected go-live in summer 2022. We will continue to use EBSCO Discovery Service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

[..] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

The library does not use and is not interested in the Academic Discovery Service. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Great company (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Too many extra charges with Spydus. Things like APIs and business intelligence should by now be part of the core offering. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are very happy with our automation system through Biblionix Apollo and have no intention of changing the platform at this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Interested in FOLIO, but we do not have the local resources to implement an open-source ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

An open source ILS is unlikely, but I have been following FOLIO. Our consortium did have Koha for 3 years, but it underwhelmed. Basically, unless we were to leave the consortium someday (also unlikely), I don't see us diverting from Alma/Primo. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

LMS is only part of the picture; RFID supplier is just as important for managing the physical collection. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We don't feel that this ILS is a bad product necessarily but maybe that it doesn't complete the needs of public libraries. Also, it oftentimes has many hiccups after updates and sometimes bugs are not fixed for an extended period of time. Creating lists in this system is not reliable whatsoever. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I am assuming that the Library Discovery Service you refer to is the automation software. I have left blank some answers that do not apply since you do not have a Not Applicable category. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are still getting used to our new system, but are very happy to this point. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our library's current system isn't user-friendly for staff or end users, and we are currently looking into options for a new ILS. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

While no ILS is perfect (otherwise we would all be using it), we feel very comfortable with our ILS, and very good about our relationship with the vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We migrated to OPALS last summer. The migration from our previous system was easy and the data was uploaded the day after we sent it. We received Zoom instruction from a librarian in their support department and technical support so far has been courteous and professional. Remarkable how the Internet has made the 13,000 kilometers between us and their offices irrelavant. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We value and appreciate the people at SirsiDynix. While the product is great, the people are what take it over the top. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

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. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

As a National Library we are also a research library but we don't have organisational academic staff or students so we did not complete the section on discovery service. Thanks! (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)

In reference to the electronic resources grade, we considered Innovative's reticence in developing a solution that allows Overdrive records to appear in the catalogue without record loads, as is currently possible with Sirsi-Dynix. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The rating on questions 1,2 and 4 are primarily based due to the lack of a module or feature to manage electronic resources. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

While drawn to the concept of open source, we have chosen to remain with Alexandria (hosted by them) because they provide the modern functionality we need at a price far lower than the open source options available to us. I remain surprised that there aren't more small libraries using this ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We love the system and its support staff. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our school library has used OPALS and worked with their support staff for fifteen years. The program does what we need and the updates and service have been consistently excellent all these years. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

I've tried to aggregate the general sense of feedback I've received in the last few years. While Alma is a huge improvement from Sierra (our last ILS), there are user-experience complaints in many departments and a general feeling of being underwhelmed by customer service post migration. There is concern regarding the ProQuest purchase as well. I think it's safe to say people here feel Alma is our best bet but it's not optimal. That said, we just aren't in a position to consider anything open source at the moment and are not interested in migrating anytime soon. I should note the improvements in moving to Alma are huge, to my thinking primarily because it's in the cloud and that saves us resources. But I'm not sure workflows are as big an improvement as many hoped. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are looking for a less expensive ILS that provides better communication with patrons through updated notices options (such as SMS). We would love to have a discovery layer or even better an ILS with good discovery built-in. We like our current ILS' functionality in terms of patron & item records, holds, reports, integration with 3rd party vendors, etc. Our current ILS has provided significantly better support over the past 2 years which has made a huge difference in getting better functionality and keeping the product working. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We have been participating in an Open Source online articles trial that integrates with our current LMS and have signed up for the live version. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We don't have staff to manage an open ILS at this time. We already have a significant number of open products for our archives & special collections, and the requirements are too much for our small department. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

I gave the question about how effectively the library's ILS is at managing electronic resources a "5" because this was the best answer I could give to approximate a neutral response. The actual response is "N/A" because the electronic resources for this library are not managed through the ILS at all. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

You didn't ask for public library feedback on discovery services but BiblioCore is an excellent product from BiblioCommons, especially for public libraries (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Re this question: Where does this library direct most of its ILS support issues? An option should be given for internal IT. We contact our IT team and if there's something they can't resolve they contact the vendor (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Fantastic customer service! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Open source would be nice if we had the staff to implement (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

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. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

There is still room for improvement with Koha and Aspen, but with Bywater Solutions managing it, they are constantly taking feedback into account and making changes. I appreciate finally using a system where the end user (the library staff and the patrons) are heard. On the staff side, I find the acquisition module time consuming to use, and it is a little difficult to run reports. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are looking at implementing Aspen Discovery in FY23. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

My organization likes what OPALS has done for us. The site is very user friendly and it works efficiently for our museum library. I also want to put in a good word for their tutors. They are definitely great support--know the software as well as knowing EVERYTHING about libraries and their technical needs. (Library type: Museum; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We appreciate the benefits which the OPALS system brings to our library and in turn to our seminary. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Only particularly noticable problem we're having with Koha is one of the recent-ish updates broke tabbing functionality between drop-down menus -- used to be able to tab through to confirm choices (i.e. never had to take your hands off the keyboard to add a new item to a record, a noteable time and effort saver), can't anymore -- but other than that it seems pretty good. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are currently working with our vendor, Bywater Solutions, to implement a child-friendly OPAC interface, and we are extremely happy with how it is working out and their willingness to work with us on this. Over the years we have found that the underlying principle of Bywater's service is that each library is unique and does things their own way. We really love that. It's the reason we left Follett in the first place, and it has really paid off for us. The features offered by Koha and the support offered by Bywater have been really excellent. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I am retiring after over 50 years working at this library and amost 40 as director. When the new director becomes familiar with the position,[...] I feel she will lead the library to look at open source considerations. Since I am leaving, it is not the right time to make that sort of a change. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

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. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

Our college has used OPALS for six years. As a new librarian last year, am impressed with the system and its professional support services. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our consortium uses OPALS union catalog ILL system to manage print resources sharing for 80+ libraries. The service has evolved in the past 16 years we have used it and manages the multitude of scenarios that occur when libraries share their resources. ILL transactions have actually increased during the pandemic; we are thankful that the system manages the increase so well. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our online catalog is done via BiblioCore (BiblioCommons). (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Disappointed in current ILS's lack of response to the pandemic and their inability to accommodate the new modes of transactions that have been made necessary due to the pandemic. They actively resisted any changes and told us that they would not be making accommodations in response to the pandemic. Modes of business have changed with the advent of the pandemic and they refuse to change along with the times. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Mid November 2021 we migrated to OCLC Wise provided by [...]. We lost some basic integration of the ILS within the IT environment of the city but gained some functionality in specific library processes. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

This is a comprehensive, sustainable system that provides extraordinary technical and professional support for our academic library. In addition to accommodating the Thai language, they made it possible to print classification labels using Thai script! (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our library migrated to another system a few years ago for a much larger company. We returned to OPALS two years ago and appreciate the comfortable community, service and system features that helped us adapt to our members' needs during the pandemic. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

While we are satisfied with SirsiDynix, we are always considering options from qualified organizations providing similar services. Thank you for including [...]. As an FYI, we had EBSCO Discovery Service as our discovery layer, and in the future recommend you consider adding discovery service survey questions for non-Academic libraries. Best wishes, The Team at HPL (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

I would need to do some research as to what and open source ILS is. I chose 5 as a middle ground for the previous question as I did not know how to answer it. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The problem we have with OCLC is that we did not purchase report designer or the other additional modules that work with our system because of the costs involved. When it comes to tracking items and getting counts, we had to go back to the manual system of counting items as we add them. No problem with the ILS main components we have. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are in the middle of a migration to TLC (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We find it confusing listing location, format AND material type for each physical item in Verso. If the format is Book, and it's located in the New Books Fiction, why then must we also list it as material type New Book? It's also a pain to have to change the material type when the book changes location from New fiction or nonfiction to the regular stacks. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I'm front-end user of our current ILS, so my impressions of the system are based strictly on finding items for patrons, creating their accounts, looking up book info, etc. Staff have been wondering since the implementation why we went with such an old-looking and outdated system. Basic searches are a pain, and rarely bring up the item one is searching for. Example: Many patrons have nick names a/o preferred names that they choose to go by. With our old system: We could place the preferred name at the top (that would be the name they saw on their account), and list all combinations of that patron's name within their file. That way we could look them up with any of those name combinations, and get the correct person. Not so with CarlX. You're given three prescribed boxes, and that's pretty much it. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

The Library is in the early stages of planning for replacing its core library systems, and as it is a UK public body all options would need to go through the appropriate procurement process.[...] (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

OPALS serves our needs extremely well and is easy to both use and customize. They promptly respond to all of our issues and have been incredibly open to our suggestions for more features. I readily recommend this system to other school districts. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have been on Polaris for a long time, so it is difficult to evaluate against any other ILS that may or may not be better. Overall, Polaris has been a great system to work with compared to long past systems we have used. Those systems, if still around, may be better now than they were then. Changes occur in Polaris ownership often and while the communications are that services will not change, the people that service our ILS needs change just as often as the ownership, which slows progress for contracts, support, etc.. as a results of building new relationships. This is the cost of doing business, but sure wish there was more stability in the market place. Polaris can be frustrating occasionally, and there are shortcomings, especially around integrating our electronic resources, but I feel like it's still the best ILS alternative out there and generally meets our needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We use Koha, supported by Bywater Solutions and we are happy with it. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

OPALS is our multi-lingual union catalog for the past fourteen years. It has been a valuable cataloging, collection development, and ILL resource for our member libraries. The support is excellent. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our library is in the midst of the "onboarding" process for the projected "go live" date in June 2022. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] does not run its own library system. It is run through [...] and the questions are difficult for NULI to answer, should have been answered by [...] Aleph is outdated but good as far as it goes. ExLibris is conductions its resources towards Alma and we have had some difficulties getting through with our problems/questions, especially when it comes to Primo and electronic material. But we are satisfied with the support we get in the Alma implementation process, which is in full swing now, going live next summer. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Yes, we love the system, the updates and timely responses to questions! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We recently moved from an installed client of Alexandria (version 6) to online (version 7) They have dumbed down the program and eliminated the boolean modifiers in their reports and exports. There are many issues/problems with this version 7 and we are actively looking at other ILS that support school libraries (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)

We have recently implemented and still don't have a strong opinion on the products. We have had many problems during the implementation and we are not satisfied. (Library type: National; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Opals is the greatest! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Soporte de Koha: Theke Solutions (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

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). I also want to mention that the number of items I provided for the collection is much lower that previously reported due to a massive weeding project that was the result of a four-year abatement and renovation project. The footprint we were provided for the collection's temporary holding space during renovation is much smaller than our original collection space. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

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. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)

Because we are only now implementing Alma/Primo for July 2022 go-live, we cannot complete the survey this year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large)

ByWater Solutions has been a great Koha support vendor to work with over the years. Our small but mighty research library probably would have more seriously considered staying with them and implementing FOLIO to help us better manage our ever-growing electronic resource collection, but our current staffing level and ability to fully engage with an open source solution has made OCLC's full-featured library services platform the more economic choice for us. If you are an open source library, perhaps with more focus on a print collection than ours has, I would still highly recommend ByWater Solutions as a vendor! (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Migration to a new ILS only happened in 12/2020 so there are still things being learned, tweaks being made, and some products that aren't being fully taken advantage of yet. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Using email to communicate with the Help Desk continues to be very effective. The speed with which minor programming issues--and the rare major ones--are addressed continues to be impressive. While some minor issues recur periodically, these are usually fixed within a matter of hours after being reported. The hosted service has been completely reliable. As I remember there was no system down time during 2021 other than brief periods for software updates. Updates were scheduled at times when they had little impact on this library's operations. Suggestions for improvements are welcomed, and some have immediately been recommended for addition to the list of programming projects. When making suggestions I always consider their applicability to other types of libraries as well. During these past two years of Covid, my memory of some parts of the software has become rusty. The training videos on YouTube have been very helpful in reminding me about how to carry out particular tasks, such as implementing design changes on the Home Page. In one case recently I emailed the Help Desk for assistance but had located the answer to my question before customer service staff had time to get back with me a few hours later. The response came with an offer to schedule an online training session to go over any issues I was still having. While recently training a new volunteer with no library automation background, the person commented on how straightforward the circulation software seemed to be and appreciated that several tasks might be performed in more than one way. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We currently use two open source systems in our library. We use VuFind as OPAC and discovery interface and KOHA as open source ILS. We implemented and migrated them ourselves. We do not currently have support services for these systems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Currently in process of instituting an open source discovery layer - Aspen from ByWater Solutions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

can't seem to get the basics of catalog management needs but continue to elaborate and embellish with little-used and rarely needed 'tools'; very complicated reporting system needs improvement; editing catalog records in bulk - no way to do it - according to them. What? (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 0)

I gave an 8 rating for functionality because I would it if Destiny had a better self-check out interface like Polaris has. In regards to ebooks, it is getting better but a full integration with Sora would be fantastic.. (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

PTFS/LibLime is responsive to our needs, but we do not work with them directly at the library-level. Problems and development go through our shared system, the [...]. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Don't have staff or skills to maintain open source but have heard great things about Koha from small Libraries (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)

ILS