Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Alma

Statistics according to type and size categories

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

2021 Alma Responses by Sector
AlmaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS3676.83 976.56997.02726.920000146.93
ILSFunctionality3667.12 967.07997.36726.990000147.29
PrintFunctionality3647.28 957.07987.42727.310000147.29
ElectronicFunctionality3666.80 966.53997.09726.880000146.71
SatisfactionCustomerSupport3656.14 976.04986.40715.920000146.43
CompanyLoyalty3596.76 955.99977.04707.090000147.36



2021 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction367 1 5 4 12 29 61 137 98 20 76.837
ILS Functionality366 3 5 10 20 44 126 124 34 77.127
Print Functionality364 1 5 8 15 43 106 148 38 87.288
Electronic Functionality366 2 3 8 16 27 67 114 102 27 76.807
Company Satisfaction367 1 6 16 15 33 76 117 82 21 76.557
Support Satisfaction365 1 5 9 19 25 47 85 97 55 22 76.146
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty359 6 4 7 15 12 46 22 92 86 69 76.767
Open Source Interest354 116 30 52 31 23 43 16 17 10 9 02.772

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS376 164.26%
Considering new Interface376 225.85%
System Installed on time?376 00.00%

Average Collection size: 2114526

TypeCount
Public0
Academic286
School0
Consortium14
Special8

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0008
[2] 10,001-100,00074
[3] 100,001-250,00054
[4] 250,001-1,000,000109
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00090
[6] over 10,000,00115



2020 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction318 1 3 7 16 41 141 88 21 77.067
ILS Functionality317 3 4 18 30 121 107 34 77.267
Print Functionality314 2 1 3 10 29 90 131 48 87.498
Electronic Functionality313 2 1 4 7 19 59 115 82 24 76.937
Company Satisfaction317 3 2 7 12 13 71 101 92 16 76.797
Support Satisfaction318 6 5 13 20 47 66 93 49 19 76.237
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty310 7 2 1 3 7 23 35 78 93 61 87.117
Open Source Interest307 101 38 45 34 15 35 14 8 7 8 02.452

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS322 113.42%
Considering new Interface322 195.90%
System Installed on time?322 00.00%

Average Collection size: 1445028

TypeCount
Public0
Academic274
School0
Consortium10
Special7

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00053
[3] 100,001-250,00051
[4] 250,001-1,000,00094
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00087
[6] over 10,000,0017



2019 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction375 7 6 10 39 70 142 79 22 76.707
ILS Functionality376 5 7 15 30 48 148 87 36 76.887
Print Functionality374 1 3 1 19 32 56 114 104 44 76.977
Electronic Functionality372 2 6 7 14 48 62 116 93 24 76.657
Company Satisfaction376 8 7 15 18 43 75 115 66 29 76.387
Support Satisfaction375 3 8 12 19 28 64 91 88 43 19 65.866
Support Improvement365 4 9 5 21 52 128 49 50 22 25 55.415
Company Loyalty371 6 7 8 8 17 51 41 92 79 62 76.607
Open Source Interest372 129 51 47 42 29 28 19 11 8 8 02.302

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS383 143.66%
Considering new Interface383 71.83%
System Installed on time?383 34590.08%

Average Collection size: 1494019

TypeCount
Public0
Academic320
School0
Consortium12
Special6

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00010
[2] 10,001-100,00071
[3] 100,001-250,00053
[4] 250,001-1,000,000115
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000107
[6] over 10,000,00111



2018 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction311 2 3 4 14 34 63 118 69 4 76.557
ILS Functionality310 1 1 5 14 33 57 105 81 13 76.717
Print Functionality307 1 2 5 11 24 48 99 87 30 76.947
Electronic Functionality305 2 2 6 6 14 41 46 96 79 13 76.527
Company Satisfaction310 1 5 6 13 19 35 57 91 70 13 76.337
Support Satisfaction308 2 8 13 17 20 48 70 68 50 12 65.876
Support Improvement295 3 5 7 9 38 112 42 33 30 16 55.515
Company Loyalty305 8 5 8 6 17 33 37 71 65 55 76.587
Open Source Interest304 104 51 49 22 27 20 16 8 4 3 02.091

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS317 103.15%
Considering new Interface317 92.84%
System Installed on time?317 29191.80%

Average Collection size: 1442753

TypeCount
Public0
Academic261
School0
Consortium10
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00059
[3] 100,001-250,00039
[4] 250,001-1,000,000101
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00087
[6] over 10,000,0016



2017 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction253 4 5 8 27 50 107 43 9 76.587
ILS Functionality252 3 3 7 20 45 102 61 11 76.807
Print Functionality253 3 4 6 23 31 91 75 20 76.967
Electronic Functionality253 2 3 6 7 23 60 72 65 15 76.677
Company Satisfaction252 1 4 3 2 14 39 43 73 55 18 76.507
Support Satisfaction251 1 5 5 8 23 45 53 60 37 14 76.046
Support Improvement247 1 4 6 9 31 83 38 33 21 21 55.665
Company Loyalty249 5 5 5 5 11 29 25 57 57 50 76.727
Open Source Interest249 87 52 42 22 17 15 7 3 1 3 01.781

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS260 31.15%
Considering new Interface260 41.54%
System Installed on time?260 24293.08%

Average Collection size: 1178078

TypeCount
Public0
Academic225
School0
Consortium7
Special6

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00040
[3] 100,001-250,00039
[4] 250,001-1,000,00088
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00073
[6] over 10,000,0011



2016 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction157 2 2 2 3 5 18 28 54 33 10 76.537
ILS Functionality157 1 1 1 7 7 12 22 51 44 11 76.707
Print Functionality157 1 1 1 4 7 13 24 42 47 17 86.857
Electronic Functionality153 3 1 2 8 12 28 37 44 18 86.807
Company Satisfaction157 3 1 2 7 8 15 28 41 38 14 76.487
Support Satisfaction156 2 2 4 10 10 13 26 46 32 11 76.277
Support Improvement152 1 2 5 5 17 45 21 23 17 16 55.846
Company Loyalty155 4 3 1 2 8 16 15 34 32 40 96.887
Open Source Interest155 72 29 24 9 9 7 1 3 1 01.361

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS161 42.48%
Considering new Interface161 53.11%
System Installed on time?161 15193.79%

Average Collection size: 1375159

TypeCount
Public0
Academic138
School0
Consortium4
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0007
[2] 10,001-100,00016
[3] 100,001-250,00027
[4] 250,001-1,000,00054
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00049
[6] over 10,000,0011



2015 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction87 1 1 4 3 9 22 26 21 76.377
ILS Functionality87 1 2 2 3 9 23 29 17 1 76.377
Print Functionality86 1 1 1 4 6 17 28 22 6 76.747
Electronic Functionality86 1 2 2 3 18 30 22 8 76.887
Company Satisfaction87 1 1 1 3 1 12 15 23 22 8 76.617
Support Satisfaction87 1 1 3 2 5 15 11 28 14 7 76.267
Support Improvement84 2 2 1 10 20 10 15 16 8 56.066
Company Loyalty83 1 2 3 6 6 5 20 21 19 86.947
Open Source Interest85 32 17 14 7 5 3 3 4 01.731

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS88 22.27%
Considering new Interface88 11.14%
System Installed on time?88 8090.91%

Average Collection size: 1924546

TypeCount
Public0
Academic74
School0
Consortium2
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,0009
[3] 100,001-250,0007
[4] 250,001-1,000,00032
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00033
[6] over 10,000,0012



2014 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction46 2 1 1 4 11 17 10 76.437
ILS Functionality46 1 1 3 6 17 13 4 1 66.096
Print Functionality46 1 3 4 14 9 13 2 66.597
Electronic Functionality46 1 1 1 4 12 10 14 3 86.747
Company Satisfaction46 2 1 3 2 5 19 9 5 76.677
Support Satisfaction46 1 2 1 4 11 20 5 2 76.337
Support Improvement44 1 2 1 4 9 8 5 9 5 56.096
Company Loyalty45 1 1 2 6 2 11 13 9 86.967
Open Source Interest44 18 7 11 2 3 3 01.411

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS46 24.35%
Considering new Interface46 12.17%
System Installed on time?46 4291.30%

Average Collection size: 2463832

TypeCount
Public0
Academic40
School0
Consortium1
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0001
[3] 100,001-250,0007
[4] 250,001-1,000,00016
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00020
[6] over 10,000,0011



2013 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction15 1 1 2 1 6 4 76.207
ILS Functionality15 1 1 1 3 4 4 1 65.336
Print Functionality15 1 1 2 2 3 4 2 86.407
Electronic Functionality15 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 76.007
Company Satisfaction15 1 1 1 7 3 2 76.807
Support Satisfaction15 1 3 1 5 4 1 76.737
Support Improvement15 1 5 1 4 4 56.337
Company Loyalty16 1 1 4 6 4 87.318
Open Source Interest17 9 2 1 1 3 1 01.880

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS18 316.67%
Considering new Interface18 15.56%
System Installed on time?18 1794.44%

Average Collection size: 1468604

TypeCount
Public0
Academic16
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,0000
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0009
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0006
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction7 1 1 2 2 1 44.864
ILS Functionality7 1 1 1 1 3 74.865
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction7 1 1 1 2 2 87.148
Support Satisfaction7 1 1 1 1 1 2 96.147
Support Improvement7 1 1 2 2 1 76.867
Company Loyalty7 2 1 4 96.439
Open Source Interest7 3 1 1 1 1 02.291

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS8 225.00%
Considering new Interface8 112.50%
System Installed on time?8 787.50%

Average Collection size: 1033620

TypeCount
Public0
Academic6
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,0000
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0003
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0003
[6] over 10,000,0010


1 Responses for Alma in 2011

0 Responses for Alma in 2010

0 Responses for Alma in 2009

0 Responses for Alma in 2008

0 Responses for Alma in 2007

2021 : gen: 6.83 company 6.55 loyalty 6.76 support 6.14

2020 : gen: 7.06 company 6.79 loyalty 7.11 support 6.23

2019 : gen: 6.70 company 6.38 loyalty 6.60 support 5.86

2018 : gen: 6.55 company 6.33 loyalty 6.58 support 5.87

2017 : gen: 6.58 company 6.50 loyalty 6.72 support 6.04

2016 : gen: 6.53 company 6.48 loyalty 6.88 support 6.27

2015 : gen: 6.37 company 6.61 loyalty 6.94 support 6.26

2014 : gen: 6.43 company 6.67 loyalty 6.96 support 6.33

2013 : gen: 6.20 company 6.80 loyalty 7.31 support 6.73

2012 : gen: 4.86 company 7.14 loyalty 6.43 support 6.14

Comments (survey2021)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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 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 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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

[...] (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)

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

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)

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)

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)

ILS