Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Polaris

Statistics according to type and size categories

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

2021 Polaris Responses by Sector
PolarisallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1767.57 58.2020957.55367.7251117.55
ILSFunctionality1767.55 57.6020957.60367.6151117.64
PrintFunctionality1737.83 58.2020927.95367.9751117.82
ElectronicFunctionality1716.26 57.0020916.40356.4651115.82
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1717.31 57.0020917.25367.4251117.55
CompanyLoyalty1757.26 58.0020957.11357.3451117.64



2021 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction176 1 3 1 5 16 45 64 41 87.578
ILS Functionality176 2 3 2 18 51 60 40 87.558
Print Functionality173 2 2 2 3 7 33 67 57 87.838
Electronic Functionality171 3 2 8 7 14 16 26 44 28 23 76.267
Company Satisfaction174 2 5 5 9 21 49 50 33 87.187
Support Satisfaction171 1 4 6 8 23 40 47 42 87.318
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty175 1 2 6 7 13 15 34 46 51 97.268
Open Source Interest153 47 17 14 10 9 23 12 11 2 3 03.062

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS184 126.52%
Considering new Interface184 00.00%
System Installed on time?184 00.00%

Average Collection size: 594603

TypeCount
Public144
Academic8
School1
Consortium12
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00078
[3] 100,001-250,00044
[4] 250,001-1,000,00033
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00017
[6] over 10,000,0012



2020 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction158 1 1 2 2 5 13 41 64 29 87.468
ILS Functionality157 1 1 1 1 3 7 16 45 50 32 87.348
Print Functionality158 1 1 1 2 10 29 67 47 87.848
Electronic Functionality155 5 2 3 3 8 18 40 37 26 13 66.216
Company Satisfaction154 1 2 1 1 15 26 35 49 24 87.117
Support Satisfaction148 1 2 2 3 15 13 31 40 40 87.318
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty154 5 2 1 3 12 16 37 42 36 87.108
Open Source Interest137 46 17 14 9 5 19 10 8 6 3 02.762

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS164 127.32%
Considering new Interface164 00.00%
System Installed on time?164 00.00%

Average Collection size: 630672

TypeCount
Public142
Academic6
School1
Consortium12
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00055
[3] 100,001-250,00035
[4] 250,001-1,000,00038
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00022
[6] over 10,000,0012



2019 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction220 5 5 10 25 51 77 47 87.418
ILS Functionality219 6 4 7 31 58 70 43 87.348
Print Functionality215 1 1 1 1 2 5 17 39 82 66 87.748
Electronic Functionality218 6 2 6 15 18 28 22 54 34 33 76.197
Company Satisfaction216 2 3 4 5 10 28 23 52 51 38 76.757
Support Satisfaction214 1 2 4 10 7 22 28 33 54 53 86.948
Support Improvement212 2 1 8 7 19 72 26 18 28 31 55.945
Company Loyalty210 7 6 6 5 11 24 23 43 47 38 86.457
Open Source Interest208 62 28 24 17 20 30 9 4 4 10 02.702

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS227 198.37%
Considering new Interface227 167.05%
System Installed on time?227 20389.43%

Average Collection size: 491957

TypeCount
Public198
Academic9
School1
Consortium14
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00021
[2] 10,001-100,00086
[3] 100,001-250,00042
[4] 250,001-1,000,00044
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00018
[6] over 10,000,0011



2018 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction258 1 2 1 4 3 11 20 77 86 53 87.398
ILS Functionality256 2 1 4 3 11 22 69 99 45 87.408
Print Functionality252 4 1 4 6 12 46 121 58 87.678
Electronic Functionality253 8 4 4 6 12 29 45 59 52 34 76.437
Company Satisfaction252 5 4 3 13 8 28 35 57 61 38 86.597
Support Satisfaction251 1 5 3 7 15 19 28 54 62 57 86.947
Support Improvement247 8 3 9 6 26 79 30 27 30 29 55.705
Company Loyalty247 10 2 7 9 11 34 19 49 57 49 86.527
Open Source Interest248 69 31 36 22 29 32 12 6 4 7 02.642

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS270 228.15%
Considering new Interface270 269.63%
System Installed on time?270 24891.85%

Average Collection size: 427048

TypeCount
Public243
Academic9
School0
Consortium17
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00020
[2] 10,001-100,00099
[3] 100,001-250,00050
[4] 250,001-1,000,00058
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00022
[6] over 10,000,0010



2017 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction263 1 4 1 7 14 31 73 87 45 87.258
ILS Functionality261 2 6 4 9 21 85 93 41 87.348
Print Functionality263 1 1 2 2 3 9 14 50 104 77 87.718
Electronic Functionality257 4 2 14 6 15 24 43 57 59 33 86.447
Company Satisfaction259 3 2 4 5 14 34 32 63 63 39 76.717
Support Satisfaction248 2 3 4 8 11 15 30 69 61 45 76.907
Support Improvement244 11 2 6 12 24 69 23 35 29 33 55.755
Company Loyalty255 9 5 3 7 20 23 29 47 54 58 96.607
Open Source Interest256 90 28 38 23 26 22 12 7 4 6 02.322

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS267 207.49%
Considering new Interface267 3011.24%
System Installed on time?267 24792.51%

Average Collection size: 418065

TypeCount
Public228
Academic11
School3
Consortium21
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00011
[2] 10,001-100,000119
[3] 100,001-250,00051
[4] 250,001-1,000,00051
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00030
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction216 1 3 3 2 6 29 60 69 43 87.358
ILS Functionality218 2 3 2 4 11 26 61 69 40 87.258
Print Functionality213 1 2 2 6 14 50 76 62 87.728
Electronic Functionality212 9 1 5 8 13 20 34 59 35 28 76.307
Company Satisfaction213 1 8 3 9 22 29 53 51 37 76.847
Support Satisfaction212 1 1 3 2 14 18 37 41 47 48 96.967
Support Improvement205 7 3 8 7 26 62 17 37 18 20 55.565
Company Loyalty213 8 1 5 17 22 22 40 51 47 86.757
Open Source Interest215 92 30 28 15 20 15 6 5 2 2 01.821

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS219 177.76%
Considering new Interface219 2310.50%
System Installed on time?219 20593.61%

Average Collection size: 453385

TypeCount
Public180
Academic17
School4
Consortium15
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0009
[2] 10,001-100,00098
[3] 100,001-250,00042
[4] 250,001-1,000,00038
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00022
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction206 3 4 2 9 24 69 61 34 77.247
ILS Functionality207 1 2 4 1 13 22 50 82 32 87.308
Print Functionality207 3 1 1 3 1 10 8 36 94 50 87.578
Electronic Functionality206 3 3 4 15 7 31 35 52 33 23 76.237
Company Satisfaction206 1 2 3 7 7 29 34 43 54 26 86.677
Support Satisfaction204 2 3 5 13 25 27 30 56 43 86.907
Support Improvement195 7 3 11 18 20 58 13 27 18 20 55.335
Company Loyalty198 5 3 5 9 12 18 21 33 50 42 86.637
Open Source Interest204 82 27 27 16 17 15 9 4 1 6 02.041

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS215 177.91%
Considering new Interface215 2612.09%
System Installed on time?215 19791.63%

Average Collection size: 459670

TypeCount
Public184
Academic11
School0
Consortium18
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00097
[3] 100,001-250,00046
[4] 250,001-1,000,00043
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00025
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction169 1 1 1 8 19 43 59 37 87.518
ILS Functionality169 1 1 1 1 1 6 20 46 59 33 87.408
Print Functionality167 3 1 1 1 5 9 33 64 50 87.668
Electronic Functionality164 5 3 7 12 22 34 34 33 14 66.206
Company Satisfaction168 1 1 1 6 9 25 46 44 35 77.237
Support Satisfaction165 1 4 4 6 2 14 41 49 44 87.368
Support Improvement161 4 3 5 7 20 48 16 22 20 16 55.645
Company Loyalty167 6 1 2 9 9 20 29 43 48 97.118
Open Source Interest161 63 22 16 13 16 14 6 8 2 1 02.141

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS170 95.29%
Considering new Interface170 169.41%
System Installed on time?170 16496.47%

Average Collection size: 570334

TypeCount
Public143
Academic10
School0
Consortium14
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00063
[3] 100,001-250,00045
[4] 250,001-1,000,00033
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00020
[6] over 10,000,0011



2013 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction138 1 9 10 34 49 35 87.638
ILS Functionality138 3 6 12 36 51 30 87.548
Print Functionality136 2 2 2 8 7 19 52 44 87.658
Electronic Functionality136 3 3 3 6 8 19 22 22 36 14 86.287
Company Satisfaction136 1 1 11 7 27 46 43 87.708
Support Satisfaction137 3 2 11 9 30 41 41 87.548
Support Improvement135 1 1 4 2 32 15 22 27 31 56.837
Company Loyalty137 2 1 3 3 8 8 23 29 60 97.628
Open Source Interest134 60 18 20 8 5 13 3 5 2 01.781

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS143 10.70%
Considering new Interface143 1510.49%
System Installed on time?143 13292.31%

Average Collection size: 532870

TypeCount
Public118
Academic11
School1
Consortium11
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00057
[3] 100,001-250,00042
[4] 250,001-1,000,00018
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00016
[6] over 10,000,0011



2012 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction152 2 4 8 29 64 45 87.878
ILS Functionality152 1 1 4 8 54 51 33 77.628
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction151 2 2 1 6 9 17 60 54 87.838
Support Satisfaction152 1 3 2 5 11 44 44 42 77.528
Support Improvement144 2 3 8 50 19 17 16 29 56.376
Company Loyalty152 1 1 2 14 3 21 24 86 97.979
Open Source Interest149 50 19 23 22 12 10 8 3 1 1 02.112

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS161 21.24%
Considering new Interface161 63.73%
System Installed on time?161 15093.17%

Average Collection size: 411671

TypeCount
Public140
Academic8
School1
Consortium9
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00054
[3] 100,001-250,00043
[4] 250,001-1,000,00027
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00027
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction102 4 1 3 3 19 37 35 87.778
ILS Functionality102 1 4 8 20 46 23 87.718
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction100 1 2 3 2 4 15 36 37 97.808
Support Satisfaction100 2 2 4 2 6 22 29 33 97.558
Support Improvement97 3 1 2 2 6 23 10 12 18 20 56.377
Company Loyalty100 1 2 2 2 2 2 9 28 52 97.959
Open Source Interest99 46 12 20 8 2 6 3 1 1 01.481

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS106 21.89%
Considering new Interface106 87.55%
System Installed on time?106 10195.28%

Average Collection size: 541249

TypeCount
Public91
Academic3
School1
Consortium9
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00039
[3] 100,001-250,00022
[4] 250,001-1,000,00020
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00015
[6] over 10,000,0011



2010 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction101 1 3 2 1 3 17 42 32 87.778
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction100 2 2 6 3 14 32 41 97.838
Support Satisfaction101 1 4 1 4 3 18 30 40 97.748
Support Improvement100 1 1 2 3 17 11 6 33 26 87.118
Company Loyalty100 1 1 1 2 4 6 8 25 52 97.929
Open Source Interest100 41 13 17 6 6 5 5 4 1 2 01.981

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS104 65.77%
Considering new Interface104 109.62%
System Installed on time?104 9995.19%

Average Collection size: 356804

TypeCount
Public92
Academic6
School0
Consortium6
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00033
[3] 100,001-250,00020
[4] 250,001-1,000,00017
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0009
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction92 1 1 2 1 1 13 52 21 87.798
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction92 1 1 1 4 4 6 48 27 87.808
Support Satisfaction91 2 1 2 1 1 17 45 22 87.688
Support Improvement87 3 1 1 3 13 12 8 29 17 86.838
Company Loyalty91 3 1 1 1 5 2 5 37 36 87.688
Open Source Interest90 27 21 13 2 6 10 4 3 3 1 02.281

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS92 66.52%
Considering new Interface92 66.52%
System Installed on time?92 8592.39%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction51 2 3 4 5 21 16 87.738
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction51 4 3 2 5 15 22 97.768
Support Satisfaction51 1 4 4 3 8 11 20 97.418
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty52 3 1 1 2 1 2 3 14 25 97.338
Open Source Interest51 15 13 6 3 2 7 1 1 3 02.291

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS53 59.43%
Considering new Interface53 35.66%
System Installed on time?53 4890.57%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Polaris Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction59 1 1 1 5 12 18 21 97.788
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction64 1 1 3 2 11 20 26 97.898
Support Satisfaction64 1 3 2 8 17 33 98.119
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty63 2 2 2 3 5 7 18 24 97.498
Open Source Interest62 20 11 11 3 5 4 2 3 1 2 02.272

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS64 11.56%
Considering new Interface64 23.13%
System Installed on time?64 11.56%




2021 : gen: 7.57 company 7.18 loyalty 7.26 support 7.31

2020 : gen: 7.46 company 7.11 loyalty 7.10 support 7.31

2019 : gen: 7.41 company 6.75 loyalty 6.45 support 6.94

2018 : gen: 7.39 company 6.59 loyalty 6.52 support 6.94

2017 : gen: 7.25 company 6.71 loyalty 6.60 support 6.90

2016 : gen: 7.35 company 6.84 loyalty 6.75 support 6.96

2015 : gen: 7.24 company 6.67 loyalty 6.63 support 6.90

2014 : gen: 7.51 company 7.23 loyalty 7.11 support 7.36

2013 : gen: 7.63 company 7.70 loyalty 7.62 support 7.54

2012 : gen: 7.87 company 7.83 loyalty 7.97 support 7.52

2011 : gen: 7.77 company 7.80 loyalty 7.95 support 7.55

2010 : gen: 7.77 company 7.83 loyalty 7.92 support 7.74

2009 : gen: 7.79 company 7.80 loyalty 7.68 support 7.68

2008 : gen: 7.73 company 7.76 loyalty 7.33 support 7.41

2007 : gen: 7.78 company 7.89 loyalty 7.49 support 8.11

Comments (survey2021)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polaris customer support continues to be amazing even through the tumultuous times of numerous acquisitions. They are quick to respond to tickets or emails, and having a dedicated Site Manager allows us to build a great working relationship. I hope this customer support structure doesn't change with the current acquisition and that Clarivate/Proquest/Ex Libris recognizes what a wonderful group of employees they have in their Polaris Support department! (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

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

We loved Polaris when it was its own company. Since it was bought out, our impression of its quality with regards to customer service, technology upgrades, and overall satisfaction has gone down every year. If my library wasn't part of a consortium, I would be shopping around for something else. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

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

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

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

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

ILS