Statistical Report for OPALS
| 2024 Survey Results |
| Product: OPALS |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 258 |
1 | | | | | 2 | 1 | 1 | 26 | 227 | 9 | 8.81 | 9 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 256 |
| 1 | | | | 1 | 1 | 4 | 76 | 173 | 9 | 8.61 | 9 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 255 |
| 1 | | | | 1 | | 3 | 11 | 239 | 9 | 8.89 | 9 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 213 |
4 | | 1 | | | 2 | 4 | 45 | 82 | 75 | 8 | 7.90 | 8 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 257 |
| 1 | | | | 1 | 1 | | 32 | 222 | 9 | 8.82 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 248 |
| 1 | | | | 1 | | 1 | 44 | 201 | 9 | 8.77 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 255 |
1 | | | | | 1 | | 3 | 33 | 217 | 9 | 8.80 | 9 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 127 |
7 | | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 36 | 9 | 8.78 | 10 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 261 |
3 | 1.15% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 261 |
2 | 0.77% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 261 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 72299 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 9 |
|---|
| Academic | 29 |
|---|
| School | 153 |
|---|
| Consortium | 11 |
|---|
| Special | 14 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 59 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 159 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 5 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 12 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 2 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
|---|
| 2023 Survey Results |
| Product: OPALS |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 273 |
| | | 2 | | | 1 | 5 | 22 | 243 | 9 | 8.83 | 9 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 274 |
| | | | 2 | | 4 | 1 | 76 | 191 | 9 | 8.64 | 9 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 274 |
| | | | | 1 | 1 | 3 | 14 | 255 | 9 | 8.90 | 9 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 226 |
1 | | | 1 | | 2 | 2 | 41 | 123 | 56 | 8 | 7.96 | 8 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 272 |
| | | 1 | | 1 | | 3 | 28 | 239 | 9 | 8.84 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 271 |
| | | | | | | 2 | 35 | 234 | 9 | 8.86 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 269 |
| | | | | | 3 | 1 | 37 | 228 | 9 | 8.82 | 9 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 82 |
4 | | 6 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 14 | 9 | 8.54 | 10 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 279 |
4 | 1.43% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 279 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 279 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 108021 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 11 |
|---|
| Academic | 23 |
|---|
| School | 175 |
|---|
| Consortium | 12 |
|---|
| Special | 16 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 37 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 192 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 3 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 12 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 7 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
|---|
| 2022 Survey Results |
| Product: OPALS |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 297 |
| | | 1 | | | 1 | 7 | 17 | 271 | 9 | 8.87 | 9 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 295 |
| | | | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 61 | 225 | 9 | 8.71 | 9 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 296 |
| | | | 1 | | 2 | 2 | 19 | 272 | 9 | 8.89 | 9 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 257 |
2 | 1 | 2 | | | 3 | 3 | 41 | 122 | 83 | 8 | 7.97 | 8 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 296 |
| | | | | 3 | 1 | 5 | 20 | 267 | 9 | 8.85 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 292 |
| | | | 2 | 1 | | 2 | 49 | 238 | 9 | 8.77 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 290 |
2 | 2 | | | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 32 | 248 | 9 | 8.71 | 9 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 97 |
4 | 1 | 3 | 1 | | 9 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 24 | 9 | 8.28 | 10 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 297 |
2 | 0.67% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 297 |
3 | 1.01% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 297 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 95676 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 11 |
|---|
| Academic | 29 |
|---|
| School | 182 |
|---|
| Consortium | 10 |
|---|
| Special | 14 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 50 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 184 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 3 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 12 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 6 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
|---|
Statistics according to type and size categories
The following table presents the 2021 results according to the type and size of the library.
| 2021 OPALS Responses by Sector |
|---|
| OPALS | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium |
|---|
| | small | medium | large | small | medium | large | | |
|---|
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg |
|---|
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 252 | 8.85 |
19 | 8.84 | 1 | | 0 | | 5 | | 0 | | 0 | | 95 | 8.87 | 8 | 8.88 |
|---|
| ILSFunctionality | 251 | 8.71 |
19 | 8.63 | 1 | | 0 | | 5 | | 0 | | 0 | | 95 | 8.75 | 8 | 8.88 |
|---|
| PrintFunctionality | 251 | 8.90 |
19 | 8.84 | 1 | | 0 | | 5 | | 0 | | 0 | | 95 | 8.92 | 8 | 8.63 |
|---|
| ElectronicFunctionality | 204 | 7.92 |
17 | 7.76 | 1 | | 0 | | 3 | | 0 | | 0 | | 80 | 7.86 | 6 | 7.83 |
|---|
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 250 | 8.76 |
19 | 8.58 | 1 | | 0 | | 5 | | 0 | | 0 | | 95 | 8.80 | 8 | 8.75 |
|---|
| CompanyLoyalty | 248 | 8.71 |
18 | 8.67 | 1 | | 0 | | 5 | | 0 | | 0 | | 94 | 8.71 | 8 | 8.63 |
|---|
| 2021 Survey Results |
| Product: OPALS |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 252 |
| | | | | 2 | | 2 | 25 | 223 | 9 | 8.85 | 9 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 251 |
| | | | | | 3 | 4 | 56 | 188 | 9 | 8.71 | 9 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 251 |
| | | | | | 1 | 4 | 15 | 231 | 9 | 8.90 | 9 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 204 |
2 | 1 | 2 | | 1 | 2 | 1 | 34 | 97 | 64 | 8 | 7.92 | 8 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 247 |
| | | 1 | | | | 1 | 44 | 201 | 9 | 8.79 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 250 |
| | 1 | | | | | 1 | 51 | 197 | 9 | 8.76 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 248 |
| | | | 1 | 1 | | 3 | 57 | 186 | 9 | 8.71 | 9 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 130 |
4 | 1 | | 2 | | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 55 | 9 | 8.92 | 3 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 253 |
2 | 0.79% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 253 |
15 | 5.93% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 253 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 113901 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 7 |
|---|
| Academic | 30 |
|---|
| School | 95 |
|---|
| Consortium | 8 |
|---|
| Special | 13 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 37 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 157 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 3 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 11 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 6 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
|---|
| 2020 Survey Results |
| Product: OPALS |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 259 |
| | | | | | 2 | 7 | 25 | 225 | 9 | 8.83 | 9 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 255 |
| | | | | | 1 | 5 | 62 | 187 | 9 | 8.71 | 9 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 258 |
| | | | | | | 5 | 19 | 234 | 9 | 8.89 | 9 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 245 |
| | 1 | | | 2 | 2 | 49 | 102 | 89 | 8 | 8.10 | 8 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 254 |
| | | | | | 1 | 3 | 36 | 214 | 9 | 8.82 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 251 |
| | | | | 1 | | 2 | 47 | 201 | 9 | 8.78 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 256 |
1 | | | | | | 1 | 2 | 52 | 200 | 9 | 8.73 | 9 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 45 |
6 | | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 16 | 9 | 7.11 | 2 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 261 |
5 | 1.92% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 261 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 261 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 96991 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 7 |
|---|
| Academic | 26 |
|---|
| School | 165 |
|---|
| Consortium | 8 |
|---|
| Special | 10 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 40 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 173 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 3 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 9 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 6 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
|---|
| 2019 Survey Results |
| Product: OPALS |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 283 |
| | | | 2 | 1 | 2 | 12 | 19 | 247 | 9 | 8.78 | 9 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 283 |
| | | | 3 | | 3 | 12 | 37 | 228 | 9 | 8.70 | 9 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 284 |
| | | | 2 | | 1 | 7 | 23 | 251 | 9 | 8.82 | 9 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 227 |
2 | | | | 2 | 3 | 7 | 40 | 93 | 80 | 8 | 7.97 | 8 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 280 |
| | | 1 | 1 | | 2 | 5 | 29 | 242 | 9 | 8.80 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 282 |
| | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 33 | 239 | 9 | 8.74 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 263 |
1 | | | 1 | 4 | 13 | 3 | 13 | 119 | 109 | 8 | 8.08 | 8 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 276 |
1 | | | | 2 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 50 | 213 | 9 | 8.64 | 9 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 272 |
10 | 2 | 1 | | 5 | 2 | | 4 | 24 | 224 | 9 | 8.35 | 9 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 284 |
1 | 0.35% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 284 |
19 | 6.69% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 284 |
277 | 97.54% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 89893 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 7 |
|---|
| Academic | 35 |
|---|
| School | 153 |
|---|
| Consortium | 14 |
|---|
| Special | 12 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 57 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 159 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 17 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 4 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
|---|
| 2018 Survey Results |
| Product: OPALS |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 342 |
| | | | | | 1 | 5 | 15 | 321 | 9 | 8.92 | 9 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 340 |
| | | | | 1 | 1 | 5 | 23 | 310 | 9 | 8.88 | 9 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 339 |
| | | | | | | 5 | 13 | 321 | 9 | 8.93 | 9 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 286 |
| | | | 1 | 3 | 2 | 38 | 124 | 118 | 8 | 8.22 | 8 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 338 |
| | | | | | 1 | 2 | 17 | 318 | 9 | 8.93 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 341 |
| | | | | | 1 | 3 | 21 | 316 | 9 | 8.91 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 333 |
| | | | 2 | 4 | 4 | 22 | 143 | 158 | 9 | 8.32 | 8 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 340 |
1 | | | 1 | | | 2 | 2 | 49 | 285 | 9 | 8.78 | 9 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 325 |
2 | | 3 | | 2 | 1 | | | 47 | 270 | 9 | 8.69 | 9 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 342 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 342 |
65 | 19.01% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 342 |
339 | 99.12% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 102512 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 10 |
|---|
| Academic | 30 |
|---|
| School | 205 |
|---|
| Consortium | 16 |
|---|
| Special | 17 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 66 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 207 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 3 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 15 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 8 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
|---|
| 2017 Survey Results |
| Product: OPALS |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 261 |
| | | | | 1 | 3 | 6 | 13 | 238 | 9 | 8.85 | 9 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 259 |
| | | | 1 | | 4 | 8 | 15 | 231 | 9 | 8.81 | 9 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 260 |
| | | | | | 3 | 6 | 8 | 243 | 9 | 8.89 | 9 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 220 |
| | | | | 4 | 2 | 51 | 84 | 79 | 8 | 8.05 | 8 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 259 |
| | | | | 1 | 3 | 2 | 15 | 238 | 9 | 8.88 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 261 |
| | | | | | 2 | 4 | 25 | 230 | 9 | 8.85 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 245 |
| | | | 1 | 10 | 2 | 19 | 111 | 102 | 8 | 8.18 | 8 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 254 |
| | | | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 32 | 211 | 9 | 8.74 | 9 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 256 |
4 | 2 | | | | 2 | 3 | 1 | 43 | 201 | 9 | 8.55 | 9 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 263 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 263 |
3 | 1.14% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 263 |
259 | 98.48% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 78904 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 9 |
|---|
| Academic | 23 |
|---|
| School | 165 |
|---|
| Consortium | 8 |
|---|
| Special | 12 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 69 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 157 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 9 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 5 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
|---|
| 2016 Survey Results |
| Product: OPALS |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 218 |
| 1 | | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 27 | 173 | 9 | 8.59 | 9 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 218 |
| | 1 | 2 | | 5 | 3 | 10 | 33 | 164 | 9 | 8.54 | 9 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 218 |
| | | | 1 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 21 | 178 | 9 | 8.67 | 9 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 187 |
1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 47 | 80 | 46 | 8 | 7.67 | 8 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 219 |
| 3 | | 1 | | 3 | 2 | 11 | 21 | 178 | 9 | 8.58 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 215 |
| 2 | | | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 28 | 174 | 9 | 8.63 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 204 |
| 1 | | | 4 | 17 | 9 | 54 | 59 | 60 | 9 | 7.58 | 8 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 215 |
2 | 1 | | | 1 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 38 | 160 | 9 | 8.52 | 9 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 209 |
13 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | | 2 | 44 | 142 | 9 | 7.99 | 9 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 220 |
3 | 1.36% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 220 |
3 | 1.36% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 220 |
214 | 97.27% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 70386 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 7 |
|---|
| Academic | 12 |
|---|
| School | 150 |
|---|
| Consortium | 8 |
|---|
| Special | 11 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 74 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 117 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 11 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 4 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
|---|
| 2015 Survey Results |
| Product: OPALS |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 207 |
| | | | 2 | 4 | 3 | 12 | 27 | 159 | 9 | 8.58 | 9 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 208 |
| | | | 2 | 4 | 2 | 15 | 37 | 148 | 9 | 8.52 | 9 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 207 |
| | | | | 4 | 6 | 7 | 30 | 160 | 9 | 8.62 | 9 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 180 |
2 | 1 | | 1 | 3 | 1 | 9 | 26 | 47 | 90 | 9 | 8.02 | 9 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 208 |
| 1 | | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 18 | 177 | 9 | 8.69 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 203 |
| | 3 | | | 2 | 2 | 3 | 21 | 172 | 9 | 8.69 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 191 |
| | 1 | | 3 | 18 | 5 | 9 | 61 | 94 | 9 | 8.02 | 8 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 205 |
2 | | 1 | | 1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 26 | 163 | 9 | 8.55 | 9 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 185 |
10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 146 | 9 | 8.03 | 9 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 214 |
5 | 2.34% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 214 |
52 | 24.30% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 214 |
205 | 95.79% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 126100 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 6 |
|---|
| Academic | 12 |
|---|
| School | 140 |
|---|
| Consortium | 18 |
|---|
| Special | 11 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 81 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 93 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 2 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 14 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 6 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
|---|
| 2014 Survey Results |
| Product: OPALS |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 129 |
| | | 1 | 2 | | 5 | 6 | 24 | 91 | 9 | 8.48 | 9 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 130 |
| | | 1 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 11 | 32 | 75 | 9 | 8.25 | 9 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 130 |
| | | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 20 | 96 | 9 | 8.52 | 9 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 108 |
1 | 1 | | 1 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 20 | 38 | 33 | 8 | 7.54 | 8 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 129 |
| 1 | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 1 | 21 | 103 | 9 | 8.66 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 128 |
| 1 | | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 19 | 104 | 9 | 8.66 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 123 |
| 1 | | | 1 | 9 | 7 | 12 | 42 | 51 | 9 | 7.89 | 8 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 128 |
1 | 1 | | | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 16 | 101 | 9 | 8.54 | 9 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 115 |
7 | 3 | 1 | | | 2 | 3 | | 17 | 82 | 9 | 7.89 | 9 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 131 |
3 | 2.29% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 131 |
7 | 5.34% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 131 |
127 | 96.95% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 74910 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 3 |
|---|
| Academic | 7 |
|---|
| School | 87 |
|---|
| Consortium | 8 |
|---|
| Special | 4 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 45 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 65 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 4 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 3 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
|---|
| 2013 Survey Results |
| Product: OPALS |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 213 |
| | | | | 1 | 4 | 11 | 26 | 171 | 9 | 8.70 | 9 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 213 |
| | | | | 3 | 4 | 14 | 38 | 154 | 9 | 8.58 | 9 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 213 |
| | | | | | 4 | 7 | 28 | 174 | 9 | 8.75 | 9 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 176 |
| | | | 3 | 3 | 7 | 12 | 59 | 92 | 9 | 8.26 | 9 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 212 |
| | | | | 1 | 2 | 5 | 20 | 184 | 9 | 8.81 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 212 |
| | | | | 4 | 2 | 3 | 17 | 186 | 9 | 8.79 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 196 |
| | | | 1 | 12 | 2 | 6 | 44 | 131 | 9 | 8.41 | 9 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 208 |
1 | | | | 1 | 3 | | 5 | 16 | 182 | 9 | 8.75 | 9 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 196 |
13 | 1 | | | 2 | 2 | | 4 | 8 | 166 | 9 | 8.19 | 9 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 215 |
1 | 0.47% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 215 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 215 |
205 | 95.35% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 22577 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 2 |
|---|
| Academic | 5 |
|---|
| School | 173 |
|---|
| Consortium | 4 |
|---|
| Special | 9 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 74 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 102 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 2 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
|---|
| 2012 Survey Results |
| Product: OPALS |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 186 |
| | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 9 | 30 | 143 | 9 | 8.63 | 9 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 186 |
| | | | | 3 | 3 | 13 | 45 | 122 | 9 | 8.51 | 9 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 186 |
| | 1 | | | 1 | 1 | 3 | 25 | 155 | 9 | 8.76 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 184 |
| | 1 | 2 | | | 1 | 5 | 23 | 152 | 9 | 8.70 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 168 |
| | 1 | | 1 | 16 | 5 | 5 | 36 | 104 | 9 | 8.18 | 9 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 177 |
| 1 | 1 | | 1 | | 2 | 4 | 16 | 152 | 9 | 8.72 | 9 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 170 |
6 | | 2 | | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 13 | 140 | 9 | 8.32 | 9 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 187 |
2 | 1.07% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 187 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 187 |
184 | 98.40% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 62626 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 4 |
|---|
| Academic | 4 |
|---|
| School | 136 |
|---|
| Consortium | 8 |
|---|
| Special | 12 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 78 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 85 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 2 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 6 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 2 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
|---|
| 2011 Survey Results |
| Product: OPALS |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 79 |
| | | | 1 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 26 | 40 | 9 | 8.20 | 9 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 79 |
| | | | 1 | 2 | 5 | 19 | 17 | 35 | 9 | 7.95 | 8 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 80 |
| | | | | 1 | 1 | 7 | 23 | 48 | 9 | 8.45 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 80 |
| | 1 | | 1 | | 3 | 6 | 19 | 50 | 9 | 8.35 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 75 |
| | | | 1 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 28 | 28 | 8 | 7.79 | 8 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 78 |
| | | | 2 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 12 | 57 | 9 | 8.46 | 9 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 52 |
6 | | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | | 1 | 1 | 38 | 9 | 7.31 | 9 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 81 |
1 | 1.23% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 81 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 81 |
78 | 96.30% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 89790 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 0 |
|---|
| Academic | 1 |
|---|
| School | 57 |
|---|
| Consortium | 7 |
|---|
| Special | 4 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 33 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 33 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 2 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 4 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 1 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
|---|
| 2010 Survey Results |
| Product: OPALS |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 100 |
| | | | | 2 | 1 | 13 | 20 | 64 | 9 | 8.43 | 9 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 100 |
| | | | | | 3 | 7 | 14 | 76 | 9 | 8.63 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 99 |
| | | | | | 1 | 5 | 11 | 82 | 9 | 8.76 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 96 |
| | | | 1 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 17 | 64 | 9 | 8.27 | 9 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 99 |
| | | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 3 | 8 | 85 | 9 | 8.71 | 9 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 98 |
5 | 1 | | | | 2 | | 2 | 2 | 86 | 9 | 8.32 | 9 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 106 |
2 | 1.89% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 106 |
2 | 1.89% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 106 |
97 | 91.51% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 49191 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 0 |
|---|
| Academic | 1 |
|---|
| School | 90 |
|---|
| Consortium | 6 |
|---|
| Special | 4 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 35 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 53 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 3 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 1 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
|---|
| 2009 Survey Results |
| Product: OPALS |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 42 |
1 | | | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 12 | 8 | 18 | 9 | 7.67 | 8 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 42 |
1 | | | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 5 | 11 | 22 | 9 | 7.93 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 42 |
1 | | | | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 10 | 25 | 9 | 8.12 | 9 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 42 |
2 | | | | | 9 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 17 | 9 | 7.17 | 8 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 42 |
2 | 1 | | | | 1 | | 1 | 10 | 27 | 9 | 8.00 | 9 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 34 |
4 | 1 | | 2 | | 4 | | | | 23 | 9 | 6.88 | 9 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 42 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 42 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 42 |
37 | 88.10% |
|---|
| 5 Responses for OPALS in 2008 |
| 3 Responses for OPALS in 2007 |
2024 : gen: 8.81 company 8.82 loyalty 8.80 support 8.77
2023 : gen: 8.83 company 8.84 loyalty 8.82 support 8.86
2022 : gen: 8.87 company 8.85 loyalty 8.71 support 8.77
2021 : gen: 8.85 company 8.79 loyalty 8.71 support 8.76
2020 : gen: 8.83 company 8.82 loyalty 8.73 support 8.78
2019 : gen: 8.78 company 8.80 loyalty 8.64 support 8.74
2018 : gen: 8.92 company 8.93 loyalty 8.78 support 8.91
2017 : gen: 8.85 company 8.88 loyalty 8.74 support 8.85
2016 : gen: 8.59 company 8.58 loyalty 8.52 support 8.63
2015 : gen: 8.58 company 8.69 loyalty 8.55 support 8.69
2014 : gen: 8.48 company 8.66 loyalty 8.54 support 8.66
2013 : gen: 8.70 company 8.81 loyalty 8.75 support 8.79
2012 : gen: 8.63 company 8.76 loyalty 8.72 support 8.70
2011 : gen: 8.20 company 8.45 loyalty 8.46 support 8.35
2010 : gen: 8.43 company 8.63 loyalty 8.71 support 8.76
2009 : gen: 7.67 company 7.93 loyalty 8.00 support 8.12
Comments (survey2021)
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)
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)
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'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)
[...]
(Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Awesome system and support!
(Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
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)
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)
Awesome service and system!
(Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
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)
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)
Their support staff are outstanding as is the system.
(Library type: School; collection size: very small; 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Fantastic customer service!
(Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Yes, we love the system, the updates and timely responses to questions!
(Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Opals is the greatest!
(Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
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)