Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Library.Solution

Statistics according to type and size categories

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

2021 Library.Solution Responses by Sector
Library.SolutionallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS886.97 76.2940427.26116.000177.240
ILSFunctionality886.89 76.2940427.10115.820177.240
PrintFunctionality887.27 76.4340427.36116.820177.470
ElectronicFunctionality876.17 76.1440426.17115.450167.060
SatisfactionCustomerSupport877.53 77.2940417.41117.820177.820
CompanyLoyalty866.47 65.1740417.12116.820176.350



2021 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction88 1 5 4 5 7 24 22 20 76.977
ILS Functionality88 1 4 3 2 4 14 19 26 15 86.897
Print Functionality88 1 3 4 2 2 5 16 34 21 87.278
Electronic Functionality87 4 1 4 3 2 16 13 14 15 15 56.177
Company Satisfaction87 2 1 4 3 1 5 5 21 21 24 96.998
Support Satisfaction87 1 2 2 2 1 1 7 13 21 37 97.538
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty86 7 3 2 5 4 6 3 7 20 29 96.478
Open Source Interest78 26 9 7 6 4 13 3 5 3 1 02.792

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS90 1617.78%
Considering new Interface90 00.00%
System Installed on time?90 00.00%

Average Collection size: 231318

TypeCount
Public55
Academic11
School17
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00038
[3] 100,001-250,00031
[4] 250,001-1,000,00011
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0003
[6] over 10,000,0010



2020 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction56 1 2 3 2 1 5 13 12 17 97.098
ILS Functionality56 2 3 3 1 3 14 14 16 97.028
Print Functionality55 1 1 3 2 3 2 8 20 15 87.248
Electronic Functionality54 1 1 2 1 2 13 5 8 12 9 56.377
Company Satisfaction55 1 1 4 1 2 3 10 14 19 97.248
Support Satisfaction55 3 3 2 1 4 5 14 23 97.338
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty56 1 3 1 3 1 6 2 8 10 21 96.888
Open Source Interest52 13 5 3 1 3 12 4 5 2 2 03.834

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS58 712.07%
Considering new Interface58 11.72%
System Installed on time?58 00.00%

Average Collection size: 141640

TypeCount
Public40
Academic9
School6
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00029
[3] 100,001-250,00020
[4] 250,001-1,000,0003
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2019 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction65 3 1 4 8 27 10 12 77.007
ILS Functionality65 1 4 1 3 12 19 16 9 76.857
Print Functionality64 2 2 4 8 10 20 18 87.418
Electronic Functionality58 2 1 5 3 7 10 12 12 6 76.177
Company Satisfaction65 4 3 2 6 14 20 16 87.208
Support Satisfaction63 1 1 4 2 6 15 16 18 97.338
Support Improvement62 1 2 9 21 6 4 5 14 56.115
Company Loyalty64 4 1 2 5 3 9 12 8 20 96.637
Open Source Interest63 21 4 7 4 9 10 3 2 3 02.812

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS67 1116.42%
Considering new Interface67 00.00%
System Installed on time?67 6292.54%

Average Collection size: 215660

TypeCount
Public44
Academic11
School8
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00031
[3] 100,001-250,00020
[4] 250,001-1,000,0007
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0003
[6] over 10,000,0010



2018 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction88 1 1 2 2 3 4 11 23 24 17 86.997
ILS Functionality88 1 3 2 5 4 10 29 18 16 76.867
Print Functionality87 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 20 26 26 87.388
Electronic Functionality87 1 2 2 5 7 8 11 17 22 12 86.417
Company Satisfaction87 1 2 1 4 2 3 12 18 19 25 97.068
Support Satisfaction88 1 1 2 3 1 7 6 12 21 34 97.358
Support Improvement86 1 2 3 8 17 6 16 13 20 96.537
Company Loyalty86 6 1 1 3 3 5 9 19 14 25 96.667
Open Source Interest86 26 8 10 6 9 5 6 6 2 8 03.172

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS89 1921.35%
Considering new Interface89 22.25%
System Installed on time?89 8292.13%

Average Collection size: 157721

TypeCount
Public62
Academic12
School11
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00042
[3] 100,001-250,00030
[4] 250,001-1,000,0005
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0002
[6] over 10,000,0010



2017 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction115 1 5 2 10 7 14 18 27 31 96.938
ILS Functionality115 1 2 3 8 10 11 24 38 18 86.927
Print Functionality114 2 1 1 6 3 7 11 16 31 36 97.188
Electronic Functionality112 6 3 10 5 7 8 12 19 29 13 85.897
Company Satisfaction114 2 1 3 8 4 9 15 36 36 87.338
Support Satisfaction115 1 2 1 9 4 8 14 27 49 97.548
Support Improvement113 2 5 2 7 24 13 15 23 22 56.477
Company Loyalty114 7 2 3 3 7 10 7 15 22 38 96.678
Open Source Interest115 44 12 14 3 13 9 8 6 1 5 02.512

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS115 3026.09%
Considering new Interface115 119.57%
System Installed on time?115 10994.78%

Average Collection size: 128919

TypeCount
Public85
Academic12
School12
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00067
[3] 100,001-250,00032
[4] 250,001-1,000,00010
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction95 1 1 2 1 4 5 11 17 31 22 87.168
ILS Functionality95 1 2 7 3 11 20 33 18 87.198
Print Functionality95 2 1 1 5 3 8 21 28 26 87.288
Electronic Functionality94 1 3 2 3 5 15 11 27 17 10 76.307
Company Satisfaction94 2 1 2 8 7 15 32 27 87.448
Support Satisfaction92 1 2 3 6 8 14 19 39 97.588
Support Improvement93 1 11 27 7 16 16 15 56.417
Company Loyalty90 3 3 2 3 8 8 5 10 17 31 96.708
Open Source Interest93 30 10 12 8 10 7 5 2 6 3 02.712

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS97 1212.37%
Considering new Interface97 99.28%
System Installed on time?97 8991.75%

Average Collection size: 135641

TypeCount
Public66
Academic13
School12
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00055
[3] 100,001-250,00027
[4] 250,001-1,000,00010
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction102 2 2 2 3 5 10 25 26 27 97.218
ILS Functionality102 1 3 3 2 5 14 16 37 21 87.168
Print Functionality102 1 1 4 3 9 13 38 33 87.678
Electronic Functionality99 1 3 6 13 8 24 26 18 86.897
Company Satisfaction102 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 19 33 35 97.588
Support Satisfaction102 3 2 4 2 5 13 35 38 97.668
Support Improvement99 3 1 1 7 20 9 13 18 27 96.727
Company Loyalty101 5 1 2 2 5 8 7 11 31 29 86.928
Open Source Interest102 35 12 12 3 9 9 7 4 1 10 02.882

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS104 1918.27%
Considering new Interface104 76.73%
System Installed on time?104 9894.23%

Average Collection size: 180187

TypeCount
Public72
Academic11
School13
Consortium1
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00055
[3] 100,001-250,00028
[4] 250,001-1,000,00013
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0002
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction92 1 1 4 7 10 26 25 18 77.177
ILS Functionality91 2 4 3 5 10 22 32 13 87.037
Print Functionality91 5 5 9 25 22 25 77.428
Electronic Functionality90 1 3 6 4 3 20 19 24 10 86.577
Company Satisfaction91 2 1 3 4 8 21 26 26 87.438
Support Satisfaction91 1 1 3 2 3 6 14 28 33 97.588
Support Improvement87 1 1 1 5 21 5 15 20 18 56.767
Company Loyalty90 2 2 1 1 6 6 5 12 23 32 97.198
Open Source Interest90 33 17 13 1 11 4 6 2 3 02.081

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS93 99.68%
Considering new Interface93 66.45%
System Installed on time?93 8692.47%

Average Collection size: 140836

TypeCount
Public65
Academic11
School12
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00053
[3] 100,001-250,00023
[4] 250,001-1,000,00011
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction69 1 1 2 2 6 8 16 13 20 97.107
ILS Functionality69 2 1 4 7 8 11 23 13 87.018
Print Functionality69 2 1 3 5 7 12 20 19 87.208
Electronic Functionality68 5 1 1 2 8 8 8 12 14 9 85.977
Company Satisfaction69 1 2 3 4 6 11 24 18 87.338
Support Satisfaction68 1 1 7 7 11 13 28 97.568
Support Improvement66 1 1 3 18 7 6 12 18 56.807
Company Loyalty66 3 2 1 1 6 10 6 10 27 97.008
Open Source Interest67 32 1 7 6 2 13 2 2 2 02.242

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS70 1014.29%
Considering new Interface70 34.29%
System Installed on time?70 6998.57%

Average Collection size: 156324

TypeCount
Public53
Academic4
School7
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00040
[3] 100,001-250,00014
[4] 250,001-1,000,00010
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction106 2 1 5 1 5 8 17 34 33 87.388
ILS Functionality105 2 1 2 5 3 8 24 36 24 87.268
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction105 1 1 1 5 4 9 10 33 41 97.648
Support Satisfaction106 1 1 2 2 3 9 10 34 44 97.748
Support Improvement105 1 1 2 26 8 17 17 33 97.047
Company Loyalty106 10 4 2 4 5 9 13 13 46 96.778
Open Source Interest105 37 11 11 11 8 10 6 4 7 02.662

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS110 1412.73%
Considering new Interface110 65.45%
System Installed on time?110 10393.64%

Average Collection size: 162637

TypeCount
Public85
Academic10
School10
Consortium1
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00053
[3] 100,001-250,00030
[4] 250,001-1,000,00017
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0002
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction130 2 3 3 5 12 33 31 41 97.468
ILS Functionality128 3 4 9 11 31 46 24 87.328
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction130 1 1 1 2 10 11 24 34 46 97.578
Support Satisfaction130 2 4 3 8 11 20 34 48 97.528
Support Improvement129 3 2 3 8 22 9 21 24 37 96.837
Company Loyalty129 5 4 4 4 3 9 7 12 25 56 97.068
Open Source Interest128 37 11 20 12 10 11 10 8 2 7 02.952

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS132 2015.15%
Considering new Interface132 75.30%
System Installed on time?132 12796.21%

Average Collection size: 135321

TypeCount
Public100
Academic11
School8
Consortium1
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00070
[3] 100,001-250,00040
[4] 250,001-1,000,00014
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2010 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction103 1 7 6 6 7 21 31 24 87.098
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction102 1 4 1 4 9 4 21 29 29 87.238
Support Satisfaction103 2 2 2 7 2 11 18 19 40 97.328
Support Improvement100 4 1 5 3 4 24 10 11 22 16 56.136
Company Loyalty103 6 3 8 1 1 7 3 12 16 46 96.848
Open Source Interest102 34 9 15 10 3 14 4 4 1 8 02.772

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS105 1514.29%
Considering new Interface105 87.62%
System Installed on time?105 9388.57%

Average Collection size: 99085

TypeCount
Public80
Academic10
School10
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00056
[3] 100,001-250,00019
[4] 250,001-1,000,0007
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction110 1 2 4 3 6 4 45 26 19 77.067
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction110 1 2 6 4 2 7 25 33 30 87.278
Support Satisfaction110 1 1 4 3 1 5 12 20 31 32 97.238
Support Improvement104 3 2 2 3 6 26 6 19 20 17 56.267
Company Loyalty109 4 3 6 1 1 12 4 15 22 41 96.948
Open Source Interest110 24 17 11 7 9 16 9 8 4 5 03.303

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS115 108.70%
Considering new Interface115 108.70%
System Installed on time?115 9784.35%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction30 3 2 4 6 7 8 97.208
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction30 2 5 1 3 11 8 87.338
Support Satisfaction29 1 2 1 3 8 8 6 77.077
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty30 1 1 4 2 3 5 14 97.508
Open Source Interest30 7 5 4 3 5 3 2 1 03.002

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS30 13.33%
Considering new Interface30 310.00%
System Installed on time?30 30100.00%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Library.Solution Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction45 1 1 4 4 15 12 8 77.167
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction66 1 1 6 6 3 16 18 15 87.058
Support Satisfaction66 1 1 1 2 2 8 4 16 15 16 76.927
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty65 2 3 2 2 1 5 6 7 20 17 86.778
Open Source Interest64 13 9 10 5 6 12 2 4 3 03.003

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS66 812.12%
Considering new Interface66 69.09%
System Installed on time?66 11.52%




2021 : gen: 6.97 company 6.99 loyalty 6.47 support 7.53

2020 : gen: 7.09 company 7.24 loyalty 6.88 support 7.33

2019 : gen: 7.00 company 7.20 loyalty 6.63 support 7.33

2018 : gen: 6.99 company 7.06 loyalty 6.66 support 7.35

2017 : gen: 6.93 company 7.33 loyalty 6.67 support 7.54

2016 : gen: 7.16 company 7.44 loyalty 6.70 support 7.58

2015 : gen: 7.21 company 7.58 loyalty 6.92 support 7.66

2014 : gen: 7.17 company 7.43 loyalty 7.19 support 7.58

2013 : gen: 7.10 company 7.33 loyalty 7.00 support 7.56

2012 : gen: 7.38 company 7.64 loyalty 6.77 support 7.74

2011 : gen: 7.46 company 7.57 loyalty 7.06 support 7.52

2010 : gen: 7.09 company 7.23 loyalty 6.84 support 7.32

2009 : gen: 7.06 company 7.27 loyalty 6.94 support 7.23

2008 : gen: 7.20 company 7.33 loyalty 7.50 support 7.07

2007 : gen: 7.16 company 7.05 loyalty 6.77 support 6.92

Comments (survey2021)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

ILS