Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for WorldShare Management Services

Statistics according to type and size categories

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

2021 WorldShare Management Services Responses by Sector
WorldShare Management ServicesallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1226.78 447.05286.79106.7010012
ILSFunctionality1226.89 447.41286.93106.5010012
PrintFunctionality1217.40 447.52287.86107.0010012
ElectronicFunctionality1226.52 446.75286.25106.6010012
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1226.67 447.05286.89106.5010012
CompanyLoyalty1206.63 447.32286.7596.4410012



2021 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction122 2 3 5 8 20 48 26 10 76.787
ILS Functionality122 1 3 6 8 18 42 32 12 76.897
Print Functionality121 3 6 17 32 40 23 87.408
Electronic Functionality122 2 1 4 3 19 24 34 25 10 76.527
Company Satisfaction122 1 7 5 6 7 16 30 38 12 86.617
Support Satisfaction122 1 2 5 3 5 10 15 29 38 14 86.677
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty120 6 1 3 4 5 13 11 23 22 32 96.637
Open Source Interest119 27 9 15 12 12 16 10 4 5 6 03.493

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS124 129.68%
Considering new Interface124 118.87%
System Installed on time?124 00.00%

Average Collection size: 827050

TypeCount
Public1
Academic88
School1
Consortium2
Special6

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00037
[3] 100,001-250,00035
[4] 250,001-1,000,00030
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00011
[6] over 10,000,0012



2020 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction112 2 2 2 4 19 41 23 19 77.097
ILS Functionality111 1 2 10 15 31 35 17 87.227
Print Functionality112 1 1 3 9 31 44 23 87.608
Electronic Functionality111 1 2 4 2 3 20 28 34 17 87.047
Company Satisfaction112 3 2 2 3 5 7 31 35 24 87.198
Support Satisfaction111 1 2 1 2 2 4 10 26 38 25 87.298
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty111 5 1 2 2 3 8 7 24 28 31 96.998
Open Source Interest110 32 14 16 7 8 8 5 12 2 5 02.952

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS114 1210.53%
Considering new Interface114 108.77%
System Installed on time?114 00.00%

Average Collection size: 444751

TypeCount
Public2
Academic87
School3
Consortium1
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00035
[3] 100,001-250,00023
[4] 250,001-1,000,00040
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0009
[6] over 10,000,0010



2019 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction155 2 5 6 9 30 52 34 17 76.827
ILS Functionality153 2 8 5 10 31 46 33 18 76.757
Print Functionality155 2 4 5 13 19 39 44 29 87.107
Electronic Functionality154 4 4 2 22 31 31 42 18 86.757
Company Satisfaction155 1 3 6 7 4 18 43 49 24 87.037
Support Satisfaction155 1 2 3 6 4 6 20 32 47 34 87.088
Support Improvement153 2 5 13 40 19 32 25 17 56.296
Company Loyalty152 5 4 5 3 6 12 12 28 39 38 86.778
Open Source Interest153 48 19 24 10 17 14 6 8 3 4 02.532

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS156 74.49%
Considering new Interface156 106.41%
System Installed on time?156 14492.31%

Average Collection size: 417961

TypeCount
Public6
Academic121
School3
Consortium1
Special9

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00056
[3] 100,001-250,00038
[4] 250,001-1,000,00039
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00013
[6] over 10,000,0010



2018 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction109 2 3 1 6 9 21 36 22 9 76.567
ILS Functionality109 1 1 1 2 7 14 22 29 20 12 76.517
Print Functionality109 2 1 2 2 6 19 24 33 20 87.107
Electronic Functionality109 2 4 2 7 9 18 37 19 11 76.497
Company Satisfaction107 1 2 4 5 8 13 29 29 16 76.837
Support Satisfaction106 2 1 4 7 8 15 31 24 14 76.697
Support Improvement106 1 1 3 17 32 11 18 16 7 55.885
Company Loyalty107 3 3 4 3 7 11 12 19 23 22 86.457
Open Source Interest108 33 18 14 7 7 14 6 4 3 2 02.512

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS109 1110.09%
Considering new Interface109 98.26%
System Installed on time?109 10495.41%

Average Collection size: 384087

TypeCount
Public4
Academic83
School0
Consortium1
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00040
[3] 100,001-250,00029
[4] 250,001-1,000,00027
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0009
[6] over 10,000,0010



2017 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction140 2 1 2 3 6 12 34 45 23 12 76.497
ILS Functionality140 2 1 3 4 4 18 25 38 36 9 76.507
Print Functionality138 1 2 4 6 12 11 34 42 26 87.067
Electronic Functionality137 2 1 4 2 9 10 27 38 30 14 76.537
Company Satisfaction139 2 1 2 3 3 14 26 36 28 24 76.797
Support Satisfaction140 3 1 3 3 2 15 23 35 33 22 76.747
Support Improvement137 4 2 4 16 32 24 18 23 14 55.996
Company Loyalty136 6 3 4 5 3 19 12 26 26 32 96.497
Open Source Interest139 54 18 21 10 10 13 3 2 2 6 02.141

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS142 107.04%
Considering new Interface142 96.34%
System Installed on time?142 12789.44%

Average Collection size: 367340

TypeCount
Public4
Academic111
School2
Consortium2
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00049
[3] 100,001-250,00034
[4] 250,001-1,000,00043
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00010
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction133 2 1 3 5 4 9 20 40 33 16 76.707
ILS Functionality133 1 2 4 5 5 11 18 43 34 10 76.557
Print Functionality134 1 2 1 1 8 20 30 50 21 87.258
Electronic Functionality132 3 2 2 7 6 12 18 35 38 9 86.437
Company Satisfaction134 1 5 3 4 7 20 25 43 26 87.048
Support Satisfaction133 1 2 5 2 3 7 17 29 43 24 86.998
Support Improvement127 2 1 6 7 29 11 17 23 31 96.617
Company Loyalty132 7 2 4 1 4 13 7 19 32 43 96.918
Open Source Interest131 55 24 21 6 4 8 7 2 1 3 01.761

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS134 85.97%
Considering new Interface134 85.97%
System Installed on time?134 12694.03%

Average Collection size: 352782

TypeCount
Public4
Academic102
School1
Consortium1
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,00049
[3] 100,001-250,00034
[4] 250,001-1,000,00039
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0008
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction94 2 1 2 10 12 28 30 9 86.947
ILS Functionality94 2 2 3 7 9 19 23 20 9 76.437
Print Functionality94 2 1 8 14 24 29 16 87.177
Electronic Functionality93 3 1 1 6 11 15 20 29 7 86.587
Company Satisfaction94 2 1 3 3 12 20 34 19 87.318
Support Satisfaction93 3 1 6 3 14 17 31 18 87.088
Support Improvement89 1 2 9 18 14 16 14 15 56.427
Company Loyalty92 2 1 1 4 5 4 6 17 22 30 97.138
Open Source Interest92 45 17 14 2 1 5 3 2 3 01.511

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS95 33.16%
Considering new Interface95 44.21%
System Installed on time?95 8993.68%

Average Collection size: 424304

TypeCount
Public2
Academic75
School1
Consortium1
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00024
[3] 100,001-250,00031
[4] 250,001-1,000,00022
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00010
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction72 1 1 2 1 3 10 28 22 4 76.887
ILS Functionality71 1 2 3 8 12 31 11 3 76.517
Print Functionality70 1 1 1 4 8 15 33 7 87.218
Electronic Functionality70 1 1 1 7 10 20 23 7 86.937
Company Satisfaction71 1 2 1 1 6 15 34 11 87.398
Support Satisfaction71 2 1 3 8 19 18 20 97.448
Support Improvement69 2 2 13 9 14 17 12 86.867
Company Loyalty73 1 1 1 2 1 4 15 23 25 97.598
Open Source Interest71 36 15 3 9 4 1 2 1 01.280

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS74 34.05%
Considering new Interface74 68.11%
System Installed on time?74 6689.19%

Average Collection size: 444490

TypeCount
Public4
Academic56
School1
Consortium1
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00024
[3] 100,001-250,00018
[4] 250,001-1,000,00013
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0008
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction31 2 1 5 2 10 6 5 76.777
ILS Functionality31 3 3 2 4 5 8 3 3 75.816
Print Functionality30 1 1 2 4 2 6 8 6 86.807
Electronic Functionality31 1 2 4 2 1 7 8 6 86.687
Company Satisfaction30 1 5 3 3 8 10 97.378
Support Satisfaction31 1 1 4 4 7 7 7 77.007
Support Improvement31 1 10 3 4 7 6 56.777
Company Loyalty30 1 1 1 4 1 2 7 13 97.338
Open Source Interest30 15 3 1 4 2 4 1 01.701

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS32 13.13%
Considering new Interface32 13.13%
System Installed on time?32 2475.00%

Average Collection size: 260399

TypeCount
Public2
Academic25
School1
Consortium0
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,0005
[3] 100,001-250,00013
[4] 250,001-1,000,0006
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0002
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction21 1 1 2 1 2 7 6 1 76.387
ILS Functionality21 2 2 1 4 4 5 1 2 75.486
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction21 2 1 1 1 1 2 8 5 86.768
Support Satisfaction21 2 3 1 1 4 3 7 96.627
Support Improvement20 1 1 2 2 1 5 2 6 96.707
Company Loyalty21 2 1 1 4 5 8 96.958
Open Source Interest21 4 6 3 2 1 3 1 1 12.522

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS22 00.00%
Considering new Interface22 00.00%
System Installed on time?22 1777.27%

Average Collection size: 316875

TypeCount
Public0
Academic21
School0
Consortium0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0006
[3] 100,001-250,0009
[4] 250,001-1,000,0004
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction10 2 4 3 1 77.107
ILS Functionality10 1 1 2 2 3 1 75.205
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction10 1 2 1 6 98.209
Support Satisfaction10 1 1 3 5 98.209
Support Improvement9 2 1 2 4 97.568
Company Loyalty10 1 1 3 5 98.009
Open Source Interest10 5 3 2 00.701

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS10 00.00%
Considering new Interface10 00.00%
System Installed on time?10 990.00%

Average Collection size: 392232

TypeCount
Public0
Academic9
School0
Consortium0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0002
[3] 100,001-250,0003
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010


0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2010

0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2009

0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2008

0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2007

2021 : gen: 6.78 company 6.61 loyalty 6.63 support 6.67

2020 : gen: 7.09 company 7.19 loyalty 6.99 support 7.29

2019 : gen: 6.82 company 7.03 loyalty 6.77 support 7.08

2018 : gen: 6.56 company 6.83 loyalty 6.45 support 6.69

2017 : gen: 6.49 company 6.79 loyalty 6.49 support 6.74

2016 : gen: 6.70 company 7.04 loyalty 6.91 support 6.99

2015 : gen: 6.94 company 7.31 loyalty 7.13 support 7.08

2014 : gen: 6.88 company 7.39 loyalty 7.59 support 7.44

2013 : gen: 6.77 company 7.37 loyalty 7.33 support 7.00

2012 : gen: 6.38 company 6.76 loyalty 6.95 support 6.62

2011 : gen: 7.10 company 8.20 loyalty 8.00 support 8.20

Comments (survey2021)

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

In general, I like open source as a concept. However, we do not currently have the necessary staffing expertise to set-up and maintain an open source product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although Library staff might be open to the possibility of an open source system, council preferences and guidelines would likely prevent this being an option. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

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

ILS