This page lists the narrative of comments given by individuals responding to the 2022 library automation perceptions survey. Comments have been redacted to remove content that identifies the indivudual or institution. To place the comments in perspective, the library type, size of collection, and the rating given for overall ILS satisfaction is provided.
There were 629 narrative comments given regarding 48 different products:
This library stopped using an ILS and no longer circulated material. Please remove from database. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Les comunico que desde este verano esta biblioteca se encuentro cerrada temporalmente, por falta de ubicación. Un saludo (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are planning for a ILS replacement project to begin in about a year, but do not have an active replacement project at this time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
Under consideration: Alma (Exlibris), but too expansive ; Folio - more accessible by price, but transition could be much more complicated. And our organization is connected in library network where many library are using Aleph. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
The Library is in the early stages of planning for replacing its core library systems, and as it is a UK public body all options would need to go through the appropriate procurement process. [...] (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We can live with Aleph for another 10 years but external circumstances force us to seek a new system earlier than we would want to. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are currently involved in a systems migration to Alma /Primo VE our "go live" date for the new system will be January 2024 (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
The [...] , which [...] is a member of, has just concluded the procurement process for a new ILS/discovery system, and recently announced that Ex Libris Alma/Primo were the selected systems. We are now just beginning to ramp up into the implementation phase, which is planned to complete summer of 2024. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)
As a branch of a larger libraries systems, we see no support from this vendor and lack of interest in understanding our issues. On the other hand, I do not know if our computer equipment is adequate for the ILS brand new versions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Joining the [...] Library Network in 2023 (migration to Alma mandatory) (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Alexandria is now web based and it has lost functionality especially when it comes to reports. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Customer support is ineffective and frustratingly slow - a true weakness considering the system is very complex. We are unable to talk to a human in Support. Everything has to be managed through online case creation where cases can linger for weeks with no attention. Chat support is rarely helpful and serves only to open cases - which we could do by ourselves if we wanted to. Having come from SirsiDynix, which has very good customer support, this was a real disappointment. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
When FOLIO is ready with a robust set of consortia tools and support, we would be likely to launch a RFP. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are part of a consortium that shares an ILS. If we weren't, I would immediately start advocating for Koha or Evergreen. If our consortium decided to implement open source for our ILS I would get involved with that project and gladly implement it at our own institution. I feel pretty strongly that libraries need to move away from vendors and take control of their own technology. Open source is the best way to do that. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We migrated along with ~114 other colleges in our consortium and are very unlikely to go solo at this point, even if I personally am interested in open source options. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Electronic resources management module is confusing for our electronic resources librarian. Feels it is difficult to integrate SUSHI and to generate statistics/graphs as compared to other ERM products. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Although my scores reflect only middling satisfaction, there are so few options we would have to consider the same vendor in any future migrations. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Ex Libris is one of the most frustrating companies in the world. Their documentation is awful. They sometimes claim to have features that you later find out don't exist. There are times they will just ignore you and let your ticket close rather than assist. With that said, when Ex Libris products are working correctly, which I'd say is about 85% of the time, it is wonderful. The process is seamless, and it can make life so easy. it's that other 15% of the time that can drive me insane. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
I consider 5 to be a neutral response when it comes to working with the company or considering other products. When we have searched for replacement systems (which I don't think will happen until 2025-2027 at earliest) we always review the market place and do a thorough comparison. Ex Libris is the best library system vendor I've worked with in a long career, but there are concerns about the Clarivate acquisitions and potential impact on content neutrality in future. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Since our last report our university and another have merged leading to a very large jump in the collections. The majority of items remain digital. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are part of a consortium, so choice would be determined by the consortium. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We find with each new updated there are fixes that address items we have had difficulty with. Either in workflow or click reduction. They are still not addressing some basic system level problems or "over builds" that distract from primary functions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Ex Libris recently announced their intent to improve Support response times. Remains to be seen how successful their efforts will be. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
As a federal/government library, we are not permitted to consider open-source ILSs for security reasons. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Ex Libris was purchased by Clarivate, and is going through transition pains. One example is that they could not provide us with a sufficiently well trained person to help us with Alma workflow analysis after we contracted with them for the service, even after many months. They introduced a new Metadata Editor in the last couple of years, and it continues to be functionally problematic. The hosted system frequently suffers from fairly significant lag times. The support team has been very slow to respond in the last year. I filed a ticket for quite an impactful issue in June 2022 that still has had no response to it, aside from an initial receipt response, even after I upgraded it to Urgent last month. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We completed our migration from Millennium to Alma five years ago. Due to staffing and budget cuts we have not fully realized the promise of the new system's APIs or reporting. Automated jobs (including integration with acquisitions vendors to load brief records), integration with authentication and patron management, and integration with knowledge base/discovery are the biggest gains for our library. Alma's workflows are designed for larger libraries; our staff of <20 individuals quickly found the system of multiple desks and branches to be too complicated and we have streamlined a lot of things. We also have concerns about Clarivate's acquisition of Alma's parent company, contributing to an oligopoly situation where Clarivate/Proquest, OCLC and Ebsco (via FOLIO) have divided the academic library ILS market among themselves. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I've noticed a significant decrease in customer service around the software that Ex Libris provides since it was acquired by Proquest, and then again when acquired by Clarivate. As I indicated in my survey with them, our sales rep is non-existent. Clarivate focuses more on the content side of sales than it does on the software side of things. It honestly makes me question whether or not Clarivate is equipped to manage the development and support of a major technology system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Open source is desirable in the long run, lack of funds, staffing and migration are the impediments. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Alma is a good LMS, but the support services can seem overwhelmed at times. Faster response times are needed. Some modules are more flexible than others, e.g. resource sharing is limited but the new developments for digital lending are great. Overall, happier with the LMS than with Discovery. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are part of a consortia, so ultimately we do not have complete control over which ILS is used. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are not actively [...] Library is the special collections and archival repository at [...]. Although we have a separate OCLC symbol, [...] uses the same ILS and Discovery platform (Alma/Primo). (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are currently in the middle of an RFP, so cannot share many details. We expect to make a decision in spring 2023, with a migration to a new system (if needed) completed by summer 2025. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
New analytics have yielded more precise collection counts, hence the increase from our last report. Prior to Alma, our consortium used Koha, which did not serve us well. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The [...] Library shifted to an all electronic collection in 2020. There is a small print collection in the archives and special collections that is non-circulating. Though we are not actively seeking to migrate to a new system, we feel that Alma provides more than we need so we are considering other options that may better meet our budget and collection needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are nested within the [...]. We feel that ALMA is too complex for our needs. We do not have enough staff to handle the complexities with ALMA. We need a system we can learn and use rather than a system that we re-learn almost on a daily basis that keeps changing. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
We previously used Dynix (Horizon) and Innovative (Millennium/Sierra) and the customer service in both instances was excellent compared to ExLibris. Alma/PrimoVE is not for the faint of heart. We are a relatively small college with very limited resources. We are fortunate to have the support of a statewide community college consortium, including many smart, generous, collaborative librarians. The language and processes in Alma/PrimoVE are often unintuitive. Many Alma interfaces can't be reconfigured. With experience in the system, we just ignore the weird language choices, but it makes training new staff more challenging. Alma training is mostly dull videos and referrals to documentation that are not contextualized to our libraries. Again, we are fortunate to have a statewide consortium of community college libraries that provide more meaningful training and support to help us get by. I do recognize that the functionality of Alma/PrimoVE goes way beyond what we had before, and I am getting more comfortable with the system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
From a Physical Acquisitions perspective: Import profiles do not comprehend multivolume line items, so any multivolume sets need manual intervention to add item records, greatly hampering automation gains. The system has conflated "Number of items" and "Quantity ordered" in their PO Line records. Additionally, for items ordered specifically for a patron destined for locations where the lending policy is "first come, first serve" (no holds) designating an Interested User for a hold fails to actually generate a hold, so Acquisitions staff have to manually write a note about the desired hold, and the Fulfillment team has to manually generate a hold for the item upon receipt. We have not found a way to exempt items in the Acquisitions Workflow. Again, automation possibilities lost. Viewing fund summary data does not provide a link to a listing of the PO Lines that correlate to those summary numbers (Encumbered, Expended) - the best option available is Analytics reports which by their nature work with day-old data. Navigating between inventory records and Invoice/POL records can be very cumbersome - there's a lot of copy/pasting and starting a new search to get from looking at payment information to managing item records/barcodes. Implementation support was very low on the options/implications information while we were trying to decide how to configure and develop workflows (especially for those campuses transitioning from a single campus to a consortial installation). Support inquiries often result in "Sorry, nothing we can do about that, suggest it as a feature improvement!" which effectively means the customer is responsible for developing a workaround. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Alma is a big, complex system. It does most of what we need it to do. Customer support is hit or miss - sometimes we get helpful answers within a day or two, sometimes we're nudging a ticket weeks later to ask if there are any updates. There's an excellent user community for Ex Libris products. The enhancement request program is broken - there are too many issues that should be treated as bugs, but instead get routed to become enhancement requests, and the company does not have the bandwidth to fix them in a timely manner. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
The Shelf Reporting (Inventory) technology is lacking. In our previous system with Ex Libris the inventory reports at least told us when something was out of order on the shelf along with what is missing. Our ILL systems aren't integrated with Alma. There's always something that could be improved. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
In general, the relative consolidation of the LSP market is limiting choice and pushing prices up across their product range. Currently they have a good offering, however, support and its openness as it gets consolidated between the merged companies that are now under the Clarivate umbrella have declined. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
There are few viable options for libraries of our size. We do appreciate the vendor we work with solicits feedback, engages with clients, and pursues system development. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Support services are poor. Defect reports regularly take several weeks for initial assessment and fixes may take several months or years, with the impression of insufficient human resources to manage the case workloads. It is also common for the company to advise that defects will not be corrected due to prioritization of workloads, indicating insufficient human resources to support products also at the development level to function as expected. This has worsened as the size of the company has grown, with the impression of ineffective communications and workflows internally between Support services such as case management and documentation, and to development and product management. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Individual support staff at Ex Libris are excellent, but the overall customer support service is sub-optimal (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Support tickets especially ones that center around metadata in the central discovery index are slow. We do like how they keep implementing new features and develop the system to do more things. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are part of a statewide LSP consortia. This impacts some of the challenges faced with maintenance and customization. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are unhappy with the quality of Ex Libris' content management services (knowledge base AKA community zone) as well as CDI. We are also unhappy with the length of time to resolve support cases. Our perception is the Ex Libris has expanded too much and focused on new products at the expense of its base products. The buyouts by ProQuest then Clarivate contribute to increasing monopolies in library technology services and scholarly publishing. Yet, with all this, there's the knowledge that because there's still a lack of diverse library service platform providers (only EBSCO and OCLC) with their unknown issues, migration is likely not worth the hassle - especially at a consortium level. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Overall, we are really impressed with the functionality provided by Alma. Its capabilities are far beyond our last ILS (Voyager) and we have only scratched the surface in regards to the functionality available. We are learning more and have many projects to integrate, but are generally happy with Alma. Ex Libris support has been slow at times but issues have generally been addressed. The main feedback is maybe the lack of structured support post-implementation. As mentioned, there is a lot of functionality we are not making use of and having some post-implementation support, outside of submitting tickets for issues, would be nice. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Support sometimes responds quickly, but if the answer isn't readily available, the case can linger, go to development, and then stay dormant for ages. Chat has made support easier to navigate. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The cost of the contract is high. We're a consortium that supports a variety of library types and sizes, and Alma is too much system for some and difficult to support for them. Customer support is uneven, and tickets have to be marked high priority to get timely attention. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are part of a consortium with a Network Zone. The amount of support and development for the Network Zone is lacking, and we are often left trying to figure out whether a new feature will work within the NZ. I suspect that the NZ was not properly explained to members during migration, because we find there are a lot of preconceived notions and a general lack of knowledge about its purpose from our partners. If ExLibris hopes to attract more consortia, it needs to take seriously the concerns of those who are currently using Network Zones, because it is often forgotten during development. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
While we migrated to Alma fairly recently and it is a mature ILS, budget pressure from the state may force us to move to what appears to be a less-developed open source system in two years' time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are part of a consortium that uses a shared ILS between all members. Any decisions to be made about migration to another ILS, whether from another vendor or an open source product, would be a group decision, so it's difficult for our institution to answer the questions about migration and open source. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Alma/Primo is very expensive and is also geared toward bigger institutions, being much more complicated. As a small, understaffed library, it is very difficult for us to stay on top of monthly updates and changes with the product, and to take advantage of all of the features. A fellow college is using Koha and their costs were cut dramatically, and it is much easier for them to manage. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
As a medium sized Swedish special library, we experience daily that this LSP is primarily developed with (North American) academic libraries in focus. Some of the functions and workflows are overdimensioned in relation to our needs. Also, we have a very complicated IT enviroment, and it is difficult to use the full functionality of the system. Even some basic functions are incompatible with our security standards. Therefore, sub-optimal workflows and other problems experienced by the staff are not always caused by library system only. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We just completed migration from Voyager to Alma. It's somewhat early for lasting impressions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
With our shrinking staff, we are finding it more difficult and complicated to work with our system. We no longer have dedicated systems staff that can oversee changes and troubleshoot issues. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We tried open-source a few years ago but our consortium did not feel it could manage all of our needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are a couple years in to a shared system with the [...] consortium. So far, things have been generally effective though we are still learning. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
This was the year we migrated from Sierra to Alma. Ex Libris migration team was fantastic to work with. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Vendor support for and communication with Asia-Pacific customers is particularly poor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
EXL seems like a very good system with lots of "bells and whistles" for a big university or research center. It's a bit overwhelming at times for a small college like us. However, having a system in common with other[...] libraries is the best overall benefit. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
This was part of a statewide purchase. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We would like to emphasize that we are content with the general handling of our support requests, but find the implementation of support request somewhat lacking. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
I appreciate the new Ex Libris release schedule with its division between new features and fixes, but ExL needs to focus a whole lot more on QA and fixes in ALL cases, and not rely so heavily on the user base to find broken things for them. I suspect their test environments do not have large enough databases. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have just recently gone live with Alma and Primo VE )Nov 1) so we haven't had any experience with the ordinary support other than that for Summon. We were in a bit of a rush to replace our old system (Virtua) because it wouldn't work if the IT department here decided to make another upgrade of Windows, it was already a bit unsteady. If we hadn't been in a hurry we would probably have gone for open source, now we will do that but quite a few years from now, so that's why I didn't put it in the migration to a new system-question. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have been using Alma since January 2018. Satisfaction with the product varies across departments. Access services are pleased with circulation and course reserves components. They like the greater transparency of item history, and the ease of modifying user records. The technical services department struggles a bit more with Alma. Most of the staff have been employed for at least 20 years and were less enthused about leaving Voyager. We may not be maximizing the tools Alma provides for acquisitions and processing. The cataloger in particular often expresses frustration with Alma. The systems librarian is quite satisfied with Alma and enjoys its robust analytics component. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We considered FOLIO when searching for a new LMS, since we prefer open-source, but the product and the vendors who could support it were not robust enough at the time. We may consider moving to an open-source product in the future, but not for at least another 5 years. We chose ExLibris because they provided the most support and fit all the criteria we had. ExLibris struggled to adjust to implementing for a small institution with only 2-full time staff members. There are a lot of bells and whistles that rely on having someone dedicated to either running Alma/Primo completely, or being a specialist in certain fields (cataloging, acquisitions, etc). Scaling is an issue. However, the product has everything we need and we're slowly rolling it out as we go. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Being a part of the [...], we have no choice in what ILS we use. While Alma/Primo is a enormously powerful system, the complexity of the system makes it challenging to operate for smaller libraries such as ours. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Support from Ex Libris is hit and miss and often quite delayed and sometimes answers are unhelpful. The system is good for most things. For serials, enumeration and chronology, and serials in Alma Digital, we would pick perhaps the lowest scores, though still a "functional" grade for paper serials management. (Library type: Special; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Customer service and functionality has improved over the 7 years of using this ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Alma has greater functionality than our previous two ILSes, but Alma is also by far the most cumbersome system to use. Nothing in Alma is easy or intuitive. Most things require many steps, and even simple functions require a lot of clicks. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Library is a member of of the [...] consortium, which is currently reviewing RFP proposals for a new ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Fortunately the [...] Library Consortium helped with our migration the ALMA/Primo. It is hard to adequately gauge the ExLibris' customer service due to the fact that SLC handled most of the tech support/training during the migration. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The state consortia we belong to is engaged in an RFP. We will either continue with our current vendor or transition to an open source product depending on the RFP score. My library is a medium-sized institution and our current ILS is more than enough for our needs. I rated our satisfaction a 7 because the system is complex and difficult to learn. We are generally satisfied with the product and the company. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
LMS has been in place for a while but there are still so many improvements we could make - if we had the skills and knowledge BUT with a very small team (2 professionals) we're a small part of a much larger cog and still finding out what could be a better customisation (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The questions above do not ask about resource sharing or course reading management. These are two areas where our current system Alma (along with its integrations with RapidILL and Leganto) provides considerable value to us. We have transformed how we do resource sharing over the last 2 years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Alma is a really powerful system. We wish we had the staffing and time to learn more about how it works and all it's quirks. It's like a complicated high end camera that does a lot, and we're just using it in point and shoot mode and grappling with all the other buttons. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The vendor appears more interested in creating new functions than in supporting/improving the ones the product already has. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Ex Libris is way behind the ball on data access and analytics. The built-in reporting tool depends entirely on data that is at least 24 hours old and has been through an opaque and often unhelpful ETL process on the Ex Libris side. Alma has a cumbersome interface, and it's difficult to automate or customize routine tasks, screens, forms, etc. It seems to me that Ex Libris routinely underestimates the technical skillset of its customers by not offering a more flexible system. Support is a complete joke. We submit tickets as a last resort. If we didn't have our fellow consortium members and the Alma/Primo list servs, we'd rarely get a helpful answer to a question. If we were tied to Alma by a consortium membership, I'd definitely be looking at other options. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)
I have only been with the [...] Library a few months; this is based on initial impressions working with the team. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Exploration of open source ILS services and solutions is largely contingent on consortia adoption. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
The choice of ILS is made through our consortium though service and tickets are handled directly through our library. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
[...] libraries are using Alma Network Zone to share bibliographic records and handle Inter-Library loans among members. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Nos problèmes relèvent surtout de la complexité de notre SGBM, dont les potentialités dépassent nos besoins réels. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are part of a sharing system so even though ALMA_PRIMO has been very challenging, we would stay with our consortium. Most of the useful help we get with ALMA issues comes from our Consortium tech help. They are responsive. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
I calculated the "Approximate number of items in the library's collection" by adding physical items (259,186) to the number of electronic titles in non-open access collections (538,194). I would consider moving to FOLIO if I believed the functionality was on par with Alma, and if I believe I could manage it without being solely dedicated to working on the library services platform. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] has only implemented to Alma in April/may 2022. Training and support was very poor, mainly self directed learning with implementation and migration difficult with no context of how things would work. We do not have a systems librarian, and only have a very small team of 2 working on this as well as working full time doing our day to day roles. The documentation was very poor with several "key" things missing. the documentation is all online and did not flow. the Ex Libris "project Manager" was not very knowledgeable or how "small libraries" work and the communication was difficult. The system is expensive and cumbersome certainly not value for money. Not really very suitable for the smaller academic library with a small number of staff who have multiple roles. The time it takes to achieved some tasks is a lot longer on this web based platform. We now have to use 2-3 different browsers to locate the information required for items, cataloging, Acquistions etc (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are pleased that Ex Libris' Alma system is improving in the area of Acquisitions, however it is the one area we would rate lower than a 7. The Ex Libris 'Community Zone' of records often presents problems for us and we have to create our own records and maintain those records for electronic resources. Appreciate the addition of Chat support into Ex Libris Alma, however Chat is not always helpful, just some of the time. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Suurin osa tukipyynnöistämme liittyy integraatioihin muiden järjestelmien kuten opintotietojärjestelmän kanssa. Apua pyydetään oman yliopiston IT-palveluista. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
ExLibris customer service is so horrible. It can take months and many inquiries to get a response. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
While we support open source we do not have the developers to support these systems (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Product is not very intuitive to users and struggles to meet accessibility guidelines (accessibility seems to be an afterthought for vendor). Access to online resources is particularly complex on both the user side and for the library. Hard lines are drawn between types of content (such as journals vs newspapers) which make it difficult to find content, especially for users who may not understand the differences. Lack of flexibility with resource types (especially items that may belong to more than one resource type category, such as books that are also dissertations or government documents) in Primo VE has been a frustration. Vendor is extremely slow to respond to cases; cases linger for years with little to no response, or are suddenly closed with a statement that the vendor isn't willing to address the issue after languishing. I rely almost entirely on our consortium for troubleshooting; I only open a case with the vendor if I determine that no one locally has/can resolve the issue. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are especially frustrated with the complexity and lack of realistic platform options for resource sharing. Various platforms continue to be introduced but configuration is complex and the likelihood of those platforms working with other already existing platforms is not good. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Overall, Alma has been a useful product. The lack of customization options is both a positive and negative. We have benefited from streamlined workflows, Ex Libris development can be slow to fix bugs for services that do not have a high impact factor for the entire customer base. We have had to develop manual workarounds to address persistent bugs and lacking functions, which is counter to the premise that streamlined, automated workflows will enhance library services. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
I have also used Verso and Polaris at other libraries and prefer Biblionix Apollo. They are very user-friendly and their customer service is fantastic. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Apollo Biblionix is designed for public libraries which works very well for us as a public library. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The customer service offered by Biblionix is unparalleled. Small problems are corrected in a few hours, medium problems in a few days, and large problems in a few weeks. The large ILS vendors don't even come close. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Biblionix is very cooperative and responsive to any current or upcoming needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Satisfied with Biblionix...5 + years history. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I'm very pleased at this time with the value the Apollo provides. If that ever changed, I'd definitely consider migrating to an open source system like Koha. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We just migrated from an Open Source ILS to Apollo Biblionix, which provides much better integration for us. Now, our digital content and our ILL books are all processed through our ILS. When we had the open source ILS, we had to use 3 separate systems for those processes and there was no integration. We would only go back to that if necessary to do so due to cost. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Very happy with Bibilonix. Right size and functionality for a library with our service population and budget. Highly recommend them! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
not familiar with open source ILS options (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have been very satisfied with Biblionix apollo, and it serves our needs well. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I have had experience with several different automation systems in libraries and Apollo is by far the best and most user-friendly on both the front and back ends. Patrons can customize options within the system using their library card, place holds, view checkouts, renew, and change their information. This level of self-service is great for both patrons and staff. Their customer service is wonderful, and there are many add-ons that extend the level of service and reader's advisory. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The jump in items in the collection represents the electronic resources we have purchased and are available to our patrons. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
none currently (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
While not a sophisticated as some ILS (i.e.: Sierra, etc.) Atriuum has proven to be the perfect system for our small, very rural library. It meets all our current needs and offers room to grow as our library/collection grows and develops. The company is great to work with and their tech support makes upgrades/updates easy and seamless, especially for those of us who are tech challenged. All the research that went into the decision to go with Atriuum has proven to have been well worth it. No regrets! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Excellent customer service and the reports that can be generated are incredible. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Atriuum serves our needs very well. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Not currently considering any Open Source ILS options but would be open to one if the right one landed on our lap (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
A few of those questions were difficult to answer since I was not an employee when the system was purchased initially, and none of the employees that were here then are still here. I am currently the only employee at this library. I have spoken with an Atriuum Employee at a workshop and learned a few things, but that has really been my only contact other than when someone called to find out if all was well, only to find out that I had started as director a few months previous to that call. She immediately set up for me to talk with someone and do an over the phone training which was FANTASTIC!!!!!!!! Thank you. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
No comment (Library type: Public; collection size: small)
I appreciate how thorough BookSystem is with all its products. Updates are tested over and over before being released. It's wonderful to get one update for the year that actually works! (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Kirjastojärjestelmämme on tällä hetkellä Aurora Silver. Annoin arviot koskien sitä. Aurorasta on myös Gold versio, joka meillä on olemassa ja käytettävissä, mutta emme ole kuitenkaan käyttäneet sitä muuten kuin ohjelman testauksen yhteydessä. Näissä testauksissa Goldissa on havaittu vakavia puutteita, mitkä estävät sen aktiivisen ja varsinaisen käytön työkaluna. Jos olisin tehnyt arvioinnin Goldista, niin ne olisivat merkittävästi heikompia. Todennäköisesti emme tule ottamaan Goldia käyttöön lainkaan vaan seuraava askel on uusi kirjastojärjestelmä. Tähän voi kuitenkin mennä vielä muutama vuosi. Uusi järjestelmä tulee erittäin todennäköisesti pohjautumaan FRBR-malliin. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
PTFS has been very helpful in transitioning our consortium files and will be providing software training to both institutions who use Bibliovation. I feel that their hosting is extremely secure and professional. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
LibLime is smaller and sometimes can be slower to act than a larger company with more staff. The move from Koha to Bibliovation was a new build and included lots of problems that needed to be fixed, items in Koha that didn't get built into BV, etc. We are in a much better place now, but still adding. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Although Bibliovation is an open-source product, it is not open to the community and all development has to be implemented by PTFS. In our Bibliovation implementation is SaaS-based, we found the product to be slow and clunky when dealing with bibliographic records with a large numbers of attached item records. However, we liked their sandbox offering which we repurposed for another non-library related project to catalog data sets. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We have been on an open source system (formerly Koha supported by LibLime, which became Bibliovation supported by PTFS) since 2011. We have done a great deal of development and have an ongoing list. Our Library System Consortium staff are instrumental in driving development in Bibliovation. The weakest module is the Acquistion module, GetIt. We are fortunate to have Consortium with robust report-writing skills as reports are not as developed as we would like. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We're very happy with the support provided by our library system. PTFS is inefficient and ignorant of how libraries work. The things they prioritize to work on generally have no impact on our day to day operations. The problem with open source is that you spend so much time and money to get normal features to work you can never get to the point of anything extra. The never ending cycle of having to do your own testing, creating training materials and doing the training is exhausting. In some cases, it's cheaper but you get what you pay for. I have worked with Polaris and SirsiDynix and they weren't perfect either but with PTFS, there are so many bugs/known issues that we have a database to list them all. Some of them are so stupid that it's surprising they weren't fixed immediately two examples: if an item has the status of mending it will still be on the pick list which is a waste of staff time. The 2nd is that if a patron uses a self check (and 80% of ours does) then it's recorded in UTC instead of a time zone that is in our country so our hourly/daily/monthly circ stats are not realistic. Then when they attempt to fix something they seem to break something else. If we could find another ILS that was in the cloud, I think we would migrate. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
Need more information about exactly what this company does. As it relates to the overall function of our library, I believe it does a good job. (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Vendor (TLC) and Provider [...] will generally blame each other the weaknesses of the TLC Carl system, so it is slightly difficult to determine who's responsible for the poor ILS presentation. Each blames the others for the issues we report. It took 5 years to get TLN[...] and TLC to address issues with form submission to Carl from a website, for example. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
There is an active Community of Libraries who use TLC, their voice is sought and listened to by the company. TLC values the personal and institutional relationships built up with their customers. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
I do wish Carl was more user-friendly but it works great for what we need. Thank you! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
I think the ILS does a pretty good job considering that [...] and [...] have different systems and needs in some regards but are uniquely intertwined (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Re: electronic resources: [...] works with a philosophy of keeping our electronic resources out of the ILS; instead we rely on our Discovery Layer (Aspen Discovery) to connect our patrons to our various online collections (OverDrive, Hoopla, Odilo, Kanopy, ComicsPlus, and others) (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Cybertools is slowly closing down and we will be forced to change to another system. They are very thoughtful and a really great system for us (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
CyberTools is closing so we are forced to move and have signed on with Koha. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our library will be migrating to the The Library Corporation's ILS in mid-January of 2023. The reason we are discontinuing with CyberTools is that the company is winding down operations. Had CT continue to be in business, I would remain with this fine company. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our needs are minimal and beyond a dated interface and technical issues with Java being used, CyberTools adequately met our basic needs. However, due to circumstances, they are no longer able to support the product and have given the notice to begin to transition to another longer-term solution, (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We don't use our current ILS for our Electronic Resources. We have a separate A-Z and that combined with Summon is sufficient for them. Too clunky to add them to current system. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 0)
Very satisfied with the system, the way it works, and the support available. (Library type: Church; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I am one school library in a large district, and all of the decisions about ILS are at the district level. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The IT department does most of the interaction for bugs in the the system. I have no idea about what the admin's plans are for this kind of system. I have not heard of many problems with Destiny. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We currently use [...] for most purposes, but we maintain a separate catalog through Follett for our physical resources and some eBooks. It's a little tricky, at times, to make the two systems work together. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Follett Destiny is very functional and has served our needs for many years. However, most of the product development has been geared to the school market. We need better ways of communicating with our patrons, a catalog that is geared to a wider audience and workflows that are not included with Destiny such as ILL's for libraries outside the system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
I don't make the decision about ILS. That happens at the district level. No doubt, schools would be asked what they think. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I don't see us switching ILS anytime soon, but it is always possible. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Decisions for ILS options are made at the central office level; therefore, I cannot comment as to the likelihood of my library considering an open source ILS. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Dread contacting customer service because of the length of time on the phone and high possibility will have to call back. Would like to auto-renewal implemented. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Follett is a great company to work with. I enjoy their books and love to see the students reading the purchased product. The only complaint that I have is that the students are not able to easily access Destiny Discover online. The reason being is that the [...] District did not pay the bill for the school year. The students want to have access to it and get frustrated when they don't know why it is not functioning. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
It would be nice if we could scroll through all the patrons and create refunds. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
For support I turn to the Follett Facebook group first. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
My library goes through the school district, so what is chosen I don't necessarily have any say over. It is district-wide. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
All Sarasota County Schools library are under the Follett-Destiny system. no choice. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 0)
Our District provides no training for Library Coordinators. I am left to try and figure out reports and advanced needs myself. I would love to have our students be able to write book reviews on my internal system, instead of going through the Follett website. I wish it were more engaging overall for our students to use. Yes, 2-5th graders here do use the system, I teach them how to from their Chromebooks. I wrote my own curriculum. I hope to have hand-held tablets for students to use to search Destiny while there are in the library. But the program is very stodgy. Can you make a more engaging one for students at the elementary level? Would love to talk to someone about how to use Destiny as part of digital literacy and information literacy at the elementary school level. Thanks! (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Follett is too expensive, has too many issues, and too many days when the servers are unavailable/the software won't load. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)
The only shortcoming from this system that I have noticed so far (new librarian) is that it doesn't handle genrefication very well. You are able to add genres into the system as sublocations, but are almost completely unable to run reports based on these sublocations. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Software is probably OK for high school or small public libraries, but lacks the flexibility needed for a special or academic library, such as ability to add other MARC fields to be searched. There is no provision for creation of authority records without being added as a 'district user', which is a severe problem. (Library type: Library Personnel; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
We use Follett Destiny Library Manager and it is very clunky. There are many times our library staff has felt this software could be designed differently to create a smoother user experience and ultimately, a more patron (student) friendly tool. But there are so many glitches in the patron-facing version - Destiny Discover - that teachers and students are reluctant to use it because it is unreliable when it comes to consistency. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
N/A (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Our ILS doesn't manage outside e and audiobooks in an efficient way. I can't do mass weedings with the uploading of a MARC record like other systems, making it impossible to integrate e and audiobook subscriptions in the Destiny catalog. Destiny doesn't care about interoperability. IN addition their updates to the Destiny Discover interface are late, incomplete, and in my view disrespectful to their customers. I feel like Follet cares the most about the administrators who pay the bills instead of the poor slob librarians who use the product. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
I am very pleased with the Follett Destiny program. It is set up in a manner that provides both easy and efficient options. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
KOHA is now use in the Basic Education Learning Resource Center (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
System seems out of date and clunky. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Since beginning working at this library in July 2022, I have not had need of customer support services. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
This ILS is not very user intuitive. Its processes are time consuming to learn. [...] (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are still learning about various aspects of this system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We already use Evergreen for our ILS which is an Open Source product through our state [...] consortium. We are satisfied and not looking for a different ILS or vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
I just find the system so terribly slow even after we have purchased new computers and upgraded our internet here. It is inconsistent with being able to pull up what we are looking for. Would love if it were able to make a guess at what we are looking for it we make a title error. LOL (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Evergreen does not manage our electronic resources. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
we have open source (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
[....] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Switched our baseline virtualization from vmware to proxmox this year. No regrets. Cheaper licensing, runs great. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are at the mercy of our consortium and the ILS committee. They will say Evergreen doesn't have a function when, in fact, they do not wish to provide that function. e.g. allocating a hold to owning library's patron's first rather than first in line at the pickup library. We have a lot of people who use our library although they live in another community. They were getting holds filled before our patrons. ILS committee wanted to lessen interlibrary deliveries, so they said going by pickup library was the only way allowed by Evergreen. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
The reason I marked our ILS as ineffective in managing electronic resources is because ebooks are not loaded into our catalog. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
My comments on the "company" should be considered the [...] administrative team, not Equinox. If it were Equinox, I would rate this as a 7. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Question about electronic resources is not applicable, as they are handled through the District Library. We deal with the [...] consortium, not directly with Equinox. We've been happy with their responsiveness. As with any ILS, there are always a few things that could bear improvement, but each upgrade improves the user experience. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I didn't answer open source considerations because we have an open source ILS already. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We currently use Evergreen, an Open Source ILS (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] organization which offers a good quality product at an affordable cost for a small academic library. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Bibliomation consortium staff have a support relationship with a vendor (Equinox) but library staff contact the consortium office directly for ILS support. We love supporting an open source ILS and participating in the community surrounding it. We're working on ways to educate library staff on what the community does, how they benefit from it, and how they can give back to it if they want to. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
The Indiana State Library provides and supports Evergreen Indiana. It has been an amazing experience (10+ years) which is growing each year with more Indiana public libraries joining. Evergreen Indiana is an excellent fit for small public libraries, especially! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
[..] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Open Source is free, easy to use for the librarian, and robust enough to do everything needed. But it needs either a tech guru or a hired programmer to keep on top of setting it up, upgrading it, and fixing bugs. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
As a member of [...] handles customer support, updates, and maintenance of Evergreen for the consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We already have implemented an open source ILS (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have FOLIO from EBSCO, but ByWater Solutions provides our support. This has been very successful and cost-effective way to manage and use open source systems with a limited staff. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We like FOLIO, but it is taking some getting used to.Since FOLIO is so young, some of the processes are not as usable as we would like them to be. It is radically different from our old system. As much as they like some aspects, my staff are finding it hard to give up their old ways of doing things. I do wish that it had its own OPAC. I want to be more involved in developing FOLIO, but I do not have the time right now. Bywater is amazing. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] uses Folio as ILS and EDS for academic discovery service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Just a comment--I think FOLIO should be the LSP and then a separate piece of who is hosting (EBSCO, IndexData, ByWater, Self-Hosted . . .). The nature of FOLIO allows cross-hosted sites to collaborate on projects in ways never before available to us. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
My ratings are lower for FOLIO because we are doing a lot of the troubleshooting, workarounds, and improvements as we are early adopters. There are very few consortiums who have implemented FOLIO so there are many things that do not work correctly. My ratings are based completely on where FOLIO is at not what it will be in the future. The overall structure of FOLIO is far superior to anything we have ever worked with including its robust API backend. This time next year FOLIO ratings should be much hirer and our overall satisfaction should be higher. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are currently on FOLIO & are interested in moving to more open softwares and possibly self-hosting instead of hosting with a vendor (EBSCO). Our biggest pain point is the very small number of discovery layers that can present print materials alongside e-resource subscriptions; there are no open source options (though VuFind features are starting to get there), and Ex Libris will no longer sell Primo to non-Alma customers. We are VERY dissatisfied with EBSCO Discovery, but don't have better options. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] migrated to FOLIO in February 2022. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
FOLIO is still rather new and therefore has areas in need for improvement. FOLIO generally works well for our print circulation and especially well for ERM. We have had no downtime since implementing 2019. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our library is currently moving to FOLIO, so some questions are not yet relevant. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We've been fairly satisfied with the level of customer support that EBSCO has provided for FOLIO. As the product is still very much in development, we have had to create workarounds for some processes; however, we've been pleased with the features that have been released and look forward to seeing the direction that FOLIO takes in the future. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We migrated to FOLIO on July 1, 2022 with the Lotus release. This system is evolving quickly but like any early adopters, we have improvements we wish to see made. We believe we made the right decision to support FOLIO but EDS is not a good public catalog, especially for print. We are working to move to VuFind for our catalog. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
FOLIO has an active community of librarians and developers working on improving its functionality. Even though currently the system is lacking a reporting APP, there are solutions through APIs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Only one [...] library is using FOLIO at the moment. One more will be migrating from Voyager to FOLIO this academic year. The remaining eight [...] libraries will be migrating to FOLIO from Voyager in the following 2-3 years with the possible exception of one. I answered the survey for FOLIO, but we are actually running two ILS/LSPs right now. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We remain only partially implemented with FOLIO and working under a schedule to complete implementation in summer 2024. There are outstanding issues of performance at scale for FOLIO, along with questions about sustainability of community-based development teams (as opposed to vendors who are providing hosting). (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Regarding the question about where we direct support issues: We first try troubleshooting in-house, and work with our hosting provider to determine whether the issue is for the project as a whole or particular to our environment. So neither of the offered options for this question seem appropriate in this open source context. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We do not yet use the ERM features in FOLIO -- will migrate from CORAL this year -- but rated that highly as it's one of the most prized aspects to the LSP; many institutions have adopted FOLIO just for its ERM functionality. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Poor internal IT support means that we need an ILS from a company that can provide plenty of support. (Library type: Library Personnel; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have a signed contract to migrate to Polaris this year. We have just started the migration/implementation process. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)
The library is still in process of moving to SirsiDynix's BLUEcloud modules from the current desktop client functionality and interface. The current ILS lacks desired API connections to better manage eResources. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
My library has been on SirsiDynix products for decades. We developed deep relationships with employees and fellow customers during that time, and I am quite sorry to say that we are exploring other options now. Other vendors developed next-gen web clients with integrated discovery, eRM, accounting, and reporting, which are offered at a single price for the full suite of services. SirsiDynix is still nickel-and-diming their customers by charging us independent fees for each cobbled-together service, which runs on the backbone of a 30+ year-old client/server architecture. After 10+ years of waiting on BlueCloud Circ and Cat, we still don't have the basic functionality of circulation and cataloging in a web client. Enterprise is more of a catalog overlay than a discovery service, requiring us to outsource to a 3rd party for capable single-search functionality. The list goes on, but at the end of the day, I simply don't have the staffing to maintain such an over-complicated system, the patience to continue nursing along outdated technology, or the funds to put toward a system that charges so much more for the full suite of services than vendors who offer all-in-one products. It's hard to say that, after all of these years, we're not even considering SirsiDynix as an option for the future. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)
Horizon is old and somewhat clunky but it gets the job done. We wish there was something fabulous to migrate to, that would be worth the pain and effort of moving, but there (still) isn’t. Customer support from SirsiDynix is generally good. Progress on BlueCloud products like Circulation and Cataloguing is glacial (no, really, I honestly believe the glaciers are receding faster). Reporting for Horizon is terrible. Reports either take an extremely long time in Blue Cloud Analytics or in many cases, cannot be done. Trying to link together data saved in separate tables (especially Acquisitions) often can't be done. It’s very difficult to make data driven decisions about collection development because of this. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Recently there has been some turnover on the SirsiDynix support side and some of the new support staff are not as knowledgeable as their counterparts which as impacted their customer support performance as of late. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
While the UI looks 20 years out of date, Horizon is still the best ILS for a large public library consortia. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have been using SirsiDynix Horizon for many years. Horizon is a mature and powerful ILS but requires a lot of manual configuration and has a steep learning curve. It is a legacy product that is no longer receiving major updates. New SirsiDynix customers are using Symphony or BlueCloud CENTRAL. While considering an ILS migration, we looked at these options. BlueCloud CENTRAL lacks several of Horizon's features that are important to our library's day-to-day operations. We have chosen to migrate to TLC's LibrarySolutions2 platform which, while less flexible than Horizon, uses a more modern interface and has many features that make the learning curve for staff easier. While as a sysadmin, I appreciate Horizon's flexibility and depth, I often find that making what seem like simple changes end up requiring help from the support team because other processes interacted with the ones changed in ways that were not obvious. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We wish BlueCloud Analytics was a lot more friendly to use. It requires a steep learning curve that involves in-depth training and a lot of leg-work to get support and make progress on to draw out statistics for your library system. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
we have recently conduced a procurement processes and are current implementing OCLC's WMS and Discovery, etc. OCLCs product offering during tender process was impressive along with their customer service, implementation process, support and overall value for money. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)
Regarding "How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources?" my answer is based on the fact that we don't make much use of our Horizon ILS for this function. We are a Bibliocommons customer, so the integration of the catalogue discovery with the placing of holds or checkouts of eresources are managed there. We do not subscribe to any SirsiDynix product specifically to manage eresources. We do load MARC records for eresources in the Horizon catalogue module. So the score is based on the range of possibilities, and it is our choices that have made it relatively low. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
SirsiDynix and Horizon continue to meet our consortia's needs for an ILS. We're excited about the upcoming Horizon release and the ability to encrypt SIP, and send notices using a patron's preferred name. There have been some frustrations as well. SirsiDynix failed to develop and deliver a Universal Harvester for the Horizon ILS, and as a result, our options for creating search limits in the Discovery Layer are limited. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Insignia lacks functionality in a hosted system, on a government network, and within a consortia. Its reporting features are limited and provide inaccurate data. It cannot for example provide an adequate average age of a collection, because it cannot run reports for books published prior to 1900. It does not appear to have an adequate inventory module. Its serial module is disconnected from serial records within cataloging module. In short, its modules are disconnected from each other. It isn't clear how its relevancy searching works within the opac or the staff-pac. It does not have an ability to provide generic logins for discrete staff functions. It does not appear to have a PIA. There are numerous reasons why this system does not meet library's needs in a system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Customer service is still lagging behind where we would want to see it as a customer of four years. We have begun to notice that Product Development is being affected. For example, new features and functionality are not responsive to the K-12 market. The core product itself is still good, and meets our needs as a K-12 school board. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Déjà Koha (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We don't have electronic resources, so we cant really evaluate this part of the ILS. For the next ILS it is possible that we will follow the National Library (we already use the same software but until now it was an independent choice). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The company that hosts our ILS is very responsive and helpful. Of Koha itself, the user's group is very helpful. The product could use some improvements in the reporting. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Most of the librarys ILS support issues we handle our selfs since we do have staff with system knowledge. Issues we cant handle our selfs we direct to our host. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
¿A quien se dirige más la biblioteca para resolver sus problemas de soporte de su SIGB? al administrador del sistema Koha. ¿La biblioteca se plantearía seguir trabajando con esta empresa si tuviera que migrar a un nuevo SIGB en el futuro? al ser empleado de la misma universidad seguimos trabajando igual, dando soporte al SIGB Koha cuando se necesita. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Very satisfied with Koha. We migrate to Alma because of a consortial agreement. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our library is very pleased to have moved from a proprietary ILS to Koha, an open source solution. Our annual support costs decreased drastically; the responsiveness from our support vendor, ByWater Solutions, increased as well. ByWater is the best vendor I have ever worked with - they really care about their partner libraries by providing excellent support, training and a can-do attitude. The Koha community is very active in resolving bugs and implementing new features and enhancements. It's easy to get involved and make a difference in how Koha works. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We already use an open source ILS, Koha. We are hosted by ByWater Solutions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Overall, Koha is a useful tool. I'm sure I could better take advantage of its options if I knew SQL better. We don't currently use it to catalog our electronic resources as they are easily added in to our discovery layer. We direct patrons there generally. Most of the time ByWater Solutions Support team is responsive within a day or so to tickets we submit. They have always been very courteous and have followed up with me on tickets that I forgot about. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
ByWater Solutions has a well-deserved reputation of high-quality vendor support services. Their staff are knowledgeable, friendly, and highly active in the open-source community, which gives substantial boosts to the development of Koha. Koha is a far better product because of ByWater's contributions, and this even benefits those who have another vendor or are unsupported. There is a slight negative in that the ticketing system ByWater uses doesn't generally notify more than one ByWater staff at a time once a ticket has been assigned to one of their employees. This means that if the ByWater support person is very busy, off work for a time, or otherwise unavailable, tickets can pile up quickly or get delayed responses... sometimes up to a month or more after a question is asked. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our current system is open source. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We already are using an open source system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
our system is open source (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our current system is open source. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are very happy with ByWater Solutions, and Koha (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I did not answer the question about electronic resources because we don't add them to our catalog. Our catalog is for print books, DVDs, and equipment (like laptops) only. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We're happy with Koha and we're considering adding Aspen as a discovery layer. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We plan to stay with Koha/ Bywater. Their customer service / tech service have been very responsive. We have very few electronic resources that are managed via the Koha catalog. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
ByWater Solutions has made it easy for a small, rural library to have an ILS that fits our needs without breaking the budget. They are super responsive with tickets concerning issues. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Koha is not made for consortiums. Nothing has worked correctly from the very start. we have submitted more service tickets than we could count. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We currently utilize an open source ILS, Koha. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
The vendor is very community oriented and is supportive of the communities it serves. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We don't use Koha for our electronic resources. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The library is already using Koha. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are very happy with Koha and ByWater Solutions. ByWater makes it easy to reach out for support and we know that they are there to truly help our library support our community. I absolutely love utilizing an open source ILS that continues to change and enhance our daily duties. Aspen Discovery has also been an amazing open source layer to promote all we have to offer in a simple layout for our patrons. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Responsive, impowered via online training, crowd-sourced for updates (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
When we moved from SirsiDynix Symphony to Koha supported by ByWater Solutions two years ago, it was a huge improvement and we saved an incredible amount of money that allowed us to offer other resources to our community. ByWater provides great support and has been a great partner. Now we just went live with Aspen Discovery on top of Koha, and we absolutely love it. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our current ILS is Koha, and while there are some functions that are missing, the open source and development models are in place to help make enhancements occur. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Koha works well and my staff is trained. We would be interested in Evergreen migration because there is already a consortium of libraries in Maine using this ILS that can more easily handle interlibrary loan requests. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Many of the challenges we have experienced with Koha are tied to the nature of implementing an open source ILS in a smaller public library; the customizability and open-endedness that would be virtues in a setting with more robust systems support end up causing difficulty. With so many different ways to do things, workflows can easily become confused, particularly for hourly part-time staff. The acquisitions and cataloging modules are not working optimally for us at the moment, although it should be noted that we have several new staff members who are still getting acclimated to the system. On the other side of the coin, we also have veteran staff members continuing older practices that no longer make sense, often due to an apparent mistrust of the system. No complaints whatsoever about Bywater's support - they are always highly responsive and willing to work through questions and issues. Again, our challenge stems principally from a confluence of staffing in transition, the complexities of an open source system, and limited in-house expertise for dealing with said complexity. This results in a heavy reliance on Bywater for systems support, leading to an ongoing, potentially time-consuming process of figuring out what works. The support itself is excellent, however. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Koha managed by Bywater Solutions was the best decision we ever made. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We switched from Sirsi to KOHA (through Bywater) and are happy with the switch. It is different using Open Source software and we have had to make some adjustments. the staff has taken extra training to use it effectively, but it is preferred over Sirsi especially when it comes to the cost. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We just completed a feasibility study on reconnecting libraries in the county and using a single ILS for everyone. Currently, there are two consortia active in the county. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
This is our second iteration of Koha.... we recently went to Bywater Koha and are happier with it than working with a small developer for customizations, etc. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We just migrated in July/August so still learning the system. The customer support available if I have questions or issues is great, but I was not super satisfied with the training of the new system. I think that could use some improvement. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have been very happy with the switch to Koha by ByWater Solutions. They have a robust support service and their blogs, videos, and documentation are incredibly helpful. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
koha is a great ILS!! Everyone should make the switch!! (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Left a couple of questions blank. Question about ILS and managing electronic resources. We do not use the ILS for managing our electronic resources, but we use ebsco discovery system. Needed a N/A option. Questions about open source considerations. We already have an open source ILS so needed an option for indicating that. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
KOHA ILS has some strengths though the complex nature of the reporting function does not serve our needs. We are an academic library, and we do not have the time or staff to work through SQL and other features of KOHA. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
Our library has joined a local academic library association that is using Primo. In the near future, the association is planning the migration to Alma. We may join the project. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are currently using both EDS and Aspen Discovery. Currently, live with Aspen but still implementing features. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
ByWater has been a great partner! Open Source requires more engagement from libraries, but in return, we get more control and products that work for us. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
This product suits our library's needs and being a web based resource offers flexibility for use outside our library. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We use OverDrive for our ebooks and have this partially integrated into Koha so the search results will display but will be kept separate from physical items. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] Library already uses an open source provider - Koha, supported by Catalyst. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our students have access to our library AND the [...] Hub through their student passes. They do data base searches through the UD. The only problem we have with Koha is that recently when they update the system our extensive journal indexing of articles has dropped off the search print out, giving only author and title of the article, and details of journal, date and pagination does not show itself. This problem is being resolved at the moment, hopefully, but at a cost to ourselves. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Open source, self-supported. No support vendor, though vendors do participate in the koha-us and koha discussion lists. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are long time Koha users and are very happy with the platform and the development community. We maintain a self-hosted instance, so the questions related to vendor are not as relevant. We have looked at FOLIO and even attended WOLFCon 2022, but are currently very apprehensive about EBSCO's oversized influence on the direction of the project, though are intrigued by the LOC's recent decision to adopt it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are *not* a lending library; therefore this comment should be read in context and is in no way a criticism of Koha's overall philosophy. We use an older version of Koha, adapted to out own internal, multiple needs. We have upgraded the Koha core in-house, as later official Koha releases have tended to add very few catalogue enhancements and have concentrated on lending and return functionality that is irrelevant to our requirements. Despite running very fast servers (in-house), the overhead (CPU cycles) of later versions leads to significantly slower response times. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] Learning resource centre believe in user oriented services approach to provide best services to its users. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
In 2021, I contracted with ByWater Solutions to provide hosting and tech support for the library's open source Koha ILS. The library has had Koha for years, but prior to 2021, onsite hosting and minimal support was provided in-house by our parent organization, which has no experience with library operations. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
KOHA is full of features that are extremely useful for our library operations. The newly added Email SMPT server module has been a great help in configuring & sending verified emails from Gmail/G-suit. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We did our own installation with the help of a volunteer IT person who maintains the system. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We run Koha ourselves and provided it as a SaaS to other libraries, so I leave satisfaction questions blank. We are not actively contemplating an ILS change but any new product should be FOSS, too. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Koha is open source, we did not buy the system (re vendor question above) we pay for it to be hosted and supported. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are already using FOLIO for ERM. But we will keep using the LBS for acquisition (orders and invoices) and patron services (accounts, lending physical media, fees etc.) for the near future. Approximate number of items in the library's collection (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The unlikeliness of adopting an open source LMS is due to us being a small university library with only one systems librarian. We would need a more robust internal systems team with good knowledge of the LMS in order to provide a resilient and stable service. As things stand, we need a system with dedicated support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Our vendor does not provide Discovery or ERM functionality so Intota and Summon were used, however, we are moving to Folio ERM and EDS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)
We did not have a good experience with PTFS (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are currently in the process of migrating to Evergreen. We are working with Equinox and hope to go live by December 8, 2022. We will also be implementing the ASPEN discovery layer. The PAC with TLC is unforgiving and it takes 3 or more clicks from the initial search result page to find the location and availability of the book. Also, TLC's reporting functionality is so tightly controlled that we can't work with the data in ways that would be helpful. The canned searches are too limiting. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Some of the issues we have with TLC actually stem from being part of a consortium and the problems associated with balancing our needs with the other libraries' needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Koha has been used by our Library Director at previous libraries and it has worked well for them. Reviews for Evergreen have been positive so we've heard of them. We will also look at other more closely, they include Apollo, Sierra and SirsiDynix. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
TLC's Library.Solutions LS2 Suite of software includes reports, PAC, Circulation management, System preferences, PAC Admin preferences, Kids PAC, Inventory, and are all very helpful and TLC is very responsive to library needs. The Cataloging software is no longer marc based, but uses marc to import book vendor records. It is extremely advanced and has an easy to use interface. TLC continues going forward with linked data services. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
I don't understand the question: Would the library consider working with this company again if it were to migrate to a new system in the future? (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are satisfied with this ILS program for our budget. The only thing that we have over and over suggested it that when doing the STATS you could fill in all STATS at one time instead of having to go back and open the tab multiple times. Reporting is great, sometime hard to find the correct report due to name of report, but we muddle through. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
The tech staff has been extremely helpful in resolving problems, notifying about maintenance issues which might conflict with library service or what changes will occur, and are always prompt to respond to any inquiry. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our current ILS - TLC - is not staying up to date with technology trends (API integrations) or UX (mobile catalog experience is horrid), which is influencing us to start looking at other vendors. However, they are then more innovative and trendsetters with new cataloging and billing integrations. At best, they have a half-supported product that meets some needs. They also had a large (and several public) cultural shifts internally that resulted in many negative customer interactions. I joined the board, gave feedback, spoke to VPs. Changes are slow, delayed indefinitely, or defensive. That being said, we just came through a pandemic and the last thing my front desk staff need is a pivot to a new ILS. I hope they can rally. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
TLC has been a great partner for our medium-small library. We are a single branch system so we cannot speak to consortium applications. We have the Tech Logic wand and are doing some progressive approaches to inventory with this tool -- it works well with the ILS for real-time status updates and identifying items with no record associated with the item number (ie a blank RFID). The addition of Syndetics to source cover art and other metadata has been a positive of the last few years. We have a Bibliotecha AMH/sorter, and this has worked well using SIP with the ILS. On the whole, LS2 has been a great tool, and we enjoy a good relationship with The Library Corp team. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Not really pleased with current ILS. Too complicated for our needs. Paying too much money for what we get; however, I realize pricing on everything has increased. Not happy with support. Some of the support staff talk to me as though they expect me to know their system as well as they do, which I don't. In other words, I don't always get the support I need. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We updated from TLC's legacy system to TLC's modern web based system. Here is an itemized list of all the things that are wrong with their new and improved cataloging system. At least as far as our needs are concerned. (I titled the file TLC Annoyances.) 1.) Inability to edit all fields in LS2 Cataloging. (Possibly the #1 Reason I want to move to a new ILS.) Except for the arbitrary number of custom fields we can setup with TLC. Which I was told is 5. a.) Fields we use: 084, 090, 092, 590, 690, 945. (These are just the ones that I've actually run across in the last couple of months.) b.) The actual arbitrary number of custom fields is limited to number of subfields. Which makes the arbitrary number of custom fields even more restrictive. c.) I have been working with TLC tech support (helpdesk) to get our custom acquisitions data transferred to the 949 line. To reduce the number of custom fields we were using in the 945 line. This has caused untold trouble due to the fact that the custom fields don't want to show up correctly in LS2 Cataloging. (Probably a bug or a feature that's a bug or something.) (They've been unable to do this for over 6 months, because they've screwed up the data management side of things. Updated from Legacy System in June 2022. Still not fixed as of January 26th, 2023.) 2.) Due to the inability to edit all fields by default, which should be standard for any modern ILS. We must export titles to fix problems with the records in third party software. Why are we using TLC? a.) To edit the 084, 090, 092, 590, 690, or 945 fields we must export the titles to fix any problems or just to add information to those fields. b.) It's impossible to batch-update the 949 line. In the event that we have some error, (highly likely), that we want to fix. Imported records with attached items, don't get imported, if the barcode already exists in the system. Which would be fine, except in the case where I explicitly want to overwrite portions of data in the 949 (item) line. 3.) No Macros == Negative Quality of Life Enhancement (This is annoying. There should be nice things to help Catalogers. There are none.) a.) Yes, I can export a record to a system that can use Macros. Again, why am I using TLC? b.) Even without a system to use Macros as was done in the previous system. There are numerous ways to make it easy for a Cataloger to insert default data. Why is there no such system in LS2 Cataloging? 4.) The Web Form based Cataloging system takes more time to use. (This is part of why I want to move to a new ILS.) a.) Scrolling or using ctrl+f to find the field I want is much slower to use than the previous system. b.) The title fields and the item fields are accessed via separate tabs? Why? To make everything slower? c.) When searching by barcode. It brings up the item fields tab. In order to view the title fields. You have to click on the title of the item to actually access the title. Instead of just having that information already shown. Like when you search for a Title. d.) The Web Form doesn't correctly handle brackets, [ and ]. See this title in our system for an example: "Bought me a cat". The copyright date has [] around it. The system omits the [ when showing it in the field, but shows it correctly in the Marc View. e.) Only good thing is that someone can't forget critical information like a subfield symbol or letter. f.) Koha does this better and includes an advanced editor with the ability to create and use Macros. 5.) The only silver lining is that the new Web based Cataloging system is easier for Non-Catalogers to use. Because they don't know what they are doing. 6.) There is no way to customize the look and feel of the LS2 PAC / Online Catalog. Beyond the addition of a single image file. # Essentially all of the above was shared with TLC. Which resulted in a meeting. # At the meeting, they essentially told us all of the reasons why they don't want us as a customer. (Our interpretation.) # They only justified their reasons for their decisions. They didn't address any problems with their new system. # The only suggestions I've received from TLC to help are to use third-party applications to do what I used to be able to do with their Legacy Cataloging system. In which case my answer is "Why am I using your system?" To which they didn't respond. It was a bit more of a rhetorical question anyway. # We are in the process of migrating to Koha. Which we've not actually communicated to TLC as of yet. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
I have only been the director since June 2022. I don't really have an opinion about the system. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
The campus librarians have some complaints about the "automation system" . But really they are issues within our own technology department. TLC has been incredibly. Our boss has scheduled an appointment with Follett Destiny. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Since 2005, our circulation of print materials has dropped by 90%, helped by the pandemic. Consequently, we are moving toward a mostly-digital collection. We circulate a very small number of print books and all we need is a system is one that keeps a good inventory. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We like Library World. It fits a small library. I would like it to have SIP2 software so it would be easier with other products like Overdrive. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We do not have any electronic resources. I am not sure what open source ILS is. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We will switch to Koha in June 2023. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are currently in the process of evaluating a test migration from Mikromarc to Quria, which is probably our next library system if the migration, integrations etc. are successful. We are fairly satisfied with Axiell as system provider in general, although the Axiell Finland branch is overly aggressive when it comes to pricing, among other concerns. Luckily we can benefit from ample support from other Axiell branches, with more lax support policies, in neighboring Nordic countries. We have in the past considered KOHA as a next step, but found that we do not have the required in-house technical resources available. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We will be migrating into a combined catalog with our main campus, with an anticipated go-live date in the summer of 2023. We will be moving to Folio. (Library type: Law; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are a totally online library. We do not have an ILS. We rely on Springshare for all our Library needs. (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: medium)
We cannot choose our ILS, it all goes through the regional consortium of libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
While the functionality of our ILS does not currently meet all of our needs, the vendor is working on solutions that will fill our needs. The vendor also provides us constant updates on their progress and asks for our feedback as well. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
OCLC Wise is a horrible system, and we came from SirsiDynix, which was not great. So many unnecessary steps are required, little makes sense, and the product works very inconsistently. "Services" are inconsistent. Most of our needs are poorly met or not met at all. Also, this system steals holds from independents so branches can get checkouts. Poor and inconsistent translations from Dutch make it even harder to use. Support is barely there, and features that would actually be useful are not engaged. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)
What we were "shown" during the sales presentations was more visionary than the product we implemented (and are struggling with). The product is underdeveloped, and the enhancements, updates and releases have not improved the basic, core functions. We are not happy to be in a position to consider changing to another ILS and enduring another migration. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Our library is part of a four-system consortium; this has been a complicating factor in our implementation of OCLC Wise, as has the extreme lack of completion and functionality in the cataloging module. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
We have used a new ILS for a year now as a consortium of libraries in a County. Part of a consortium with an awful contract with current ILS (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
OCLC Wise was brought over from Holland without consideration of any standards currently used in the United States. There is a MARC editor that works so poorly it is easier to overlay records than add a field. It doesn't index important fields, and they only have 4 developers working on the whole thing, so it takes years to get anything done. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Our libraries just went live with OCLC Wise this past November, so there is still a great deal of adjustment of configurations and staff practices at present. There have been some challenges, though much of that is to be expected. For these reasons, all of our scores sit somewhere in the middle of the scale. We will have clearer perceptions within the next year. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Media Flex offers very responsive customer service, though sometimes the programmers fall short of understanding the needs of academic libraries. They are usually helpful. OPALS has been a great value for a small, academic library. Its recent facelift was a decent update; and it's very functional for the price. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Love OPALS the product does what is needed and the price is very competitive. The customer service is outstanding. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I am not quite confident about adding e-books and audiobooks to the system. I know that when I download the MARC records of a new electronic purchase, it works perfectly, but occasionally I see electronic links which are broken and I am not sure why. It's not a big issue, though, I did not bother following up. Any time I had a serious issue, I got sufficient help from customer service. I also like the subscription price. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I have worked with this ILS system for several years. OPALS/Media Flex updates its features and add new features to stay current with ILS needs and technologies. Their customer service is the best! If I have a problem or question, within hours I receive a response. Our library is 99% print. Therefore, I have no e-books and could not evaluate it. However, if I did, I am certain that OPALS/Media Flex would receive a 9 rating because it is very efficient and effective. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We don't use our ILS to manage electronic resources. Our electronic resource vendors have their own platforms. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have been very pleased with both the OPALS product and the customer service over the years. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I am very satisfied with OPALS. Your support team is absolutely amazing! It's all about customer service and you guys Ace that aspect! It also helps that OPALS is a great product and does everything I could ever want and then some! (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I find OPALs to be an incredibly user-friendly system. It is easy to access and runs very smoothly. The reporting functions are terrific. In addition, the customer support is always reliable, fast and top notch! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Ours is a small community library (potentially 400 users). Our management needs are limited to cataloguing the print resources; we do not have any electronic resources. We do not manage circulation through OPALS. We have not had reason to contact ILS for several years. The system administration tools are not particularly intuitive but a way to work with or around them can generally be found. (Library type: Other; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Mediaflex (OPALS) has consistently provided excellent customer service and tech support for the past 14 years. Their hosting fee (support & maintenance) of $750 has not increased once which makes it ideal for public school libraries. They are constantly improving the site according to user suggestions. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS and Mediaflex is an exceptional company to work with. Customer service is outstanding. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
It has been a pleasure working with OPALS over the years. I am so glad our school found OPALS. The software and customer service are exemplary. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Annual system updates actually implemented what we suggested. This is truly a community driven system. Technical support is still outstanding. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our District Elementary Media Specialists love OPALS! It is easy to use and understand for cataloging, circulation, reports, etc., has an awesome interface for young children to use to access our online catalog, and the customer support cannot be beat! They respond quickly and are always trying to be super helpful. I recommend OPALS to other Media Specialists in my professional learning community. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Just recommended OPALS to a new librarian in our area. OPALS customer service is the best! (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Staff is SO helpful as we have worked with OPALS for the first time/setting it-up six years ago. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This year's updates were timely and relevant to our teachers and students. Technical support is awesome. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The "return to normal" in our library this year was made easy by our library's reliable program and service. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Le service et le logiciel sont formidables! (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS added useful enhancements during and post pandemic. Their support services are the gold standard. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS is a good fit for our special library. It's customizable portal and flexible catalog are perfect for our data and our library members. (Library type: Museum; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Still pleased we switched to OPALS. The system also manages single sign on database authentication. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We switched to OPALS this year. The transition was smooth, and ongoing service refreshingly prompt and competent. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have been using OPALS for ten years, during which our library collection has more than doubled. Customer support is courteous, competent and responsive. Updates help us provide efficient services and present a contemporary image to our members. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This is an excellent system for our special academic collection. It is well supported by knowledgeable librarians and technical staff and reliably hosted an ocean and six time zones away! (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We love OPALS. The system integrates comprehensive library management technology and includes extras such as portal widgets to design our library's customized library web page, and tutorials to do so. This year we implemented the equipment / IT asset management module. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We started using OPALS in 2005. Our collection has grown in size and the number of media formats, all of which the system handles very well. Technical and professional support are still outstanding and hosting services are dependable. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We switched to OPALS this school year. The data migration was done 1-1/2 hours after we sent it, and Zoom instruction followed the next day. So far, the system does everything we need and even replaces a third party webpage service with one that is integrated at no extra cost! (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Actually, we just switched to OPALS this year. They transferred records from our previous ILS, and even made improvements to them. Their fast and thorough work is so appreciated! (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This is our first library automation system. Although our special collection is comparatively small, it is large enough to be unwieldy using spreadsheets! Their data processing staff worked wonders with our limited data saving us hundreds of editing hours and a librarian / instructor trained us, easing our transition to a real automation system. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We love being a part of the OPALS community. This year's numerous updates included a discovery search integrated with our local OPAC, subscription databases and regional ILL union catalog! Their tech support staff is awesome. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Top marks for everything this year including electronic resources. OPALS discovery search and single sign on authentication are now OPAC search integrated. Our music department has started to use this to manage our 80,000 plus music scores. They developed special circulation management procedures for our music teachers to access and distribute these band, choral, orchestra resources. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We use OPALS for library materials, also technology equipment and textbooks. This is much better integrated, less than half the cost with better service from our previous system vendor. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS houses our regional union catalog and manages interlibrary loan services for 75 member libraries. ILL service has increased since the pandemic! The system supports multiple copy book club requests by collecting and keeping track of book titles from various member locations without having to generate multiple requests for individual copies; a function requested by us and other library directors in our community. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
We started using OPALS circa 2007. Frequent, annual updates enable us to manage evolving media formats and maintain our library presence on whatever devices our members use. That and courteous service technicians who know our names and context keep us loyal to them. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our members love OPAC updates, especially the database discovery that harvests resources from the print collection, databases, and curated websites all of which work on our Chromebooks, tablets and cell phones! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPAC interface, search result displays and integrated database discovery search were this year's elegantly executed updates. Our library members especially appreciated those improvements. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS continues to excel in what it does and the staff supporting it. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We switched to OPALS this year. The data migration was effortless (for us) and we were trained by an experienced librarian. So far, the system and support are better and cost less than what we left. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Consistently great program and customer service! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This is a dependable system that ensures equitable resource sharing in our region. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
We implemented OPALS in 2021 and so far, are impressed with and use its many features to manage our print and digital resources. Support, training and hosting services are prompt and dependable. We are in Southeast Asia! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Post pandemic updates included a discovery search linking print, digital, regional ILL services. Our IT department deployed OPALS Google extension to all our students' Chromebooks that inserts our library resource hits at the top of Googles' search results. Gold standard system and customer service keep us loyal! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are thankful for OPALS responsiveness and efforts to meet the needs of our libraries. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This is an excellent, well supported system. It now supports single sign on and discovery search access to our information databases and we use the equipment management module to circulate hundreds of Chromebooks to students in our district. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We use the system's integrated portal widgets to promote library services and resources to our learning community which accesses it using their cell phones, tablets and Chromebooks. our library homepage registers hundreds of thousands visits. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS has the best customer service of any vendor that we currently work with. Harry Chan is responsive, his team has great expertise, and we feel very well supported. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
N/A (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our first year's experience has been excellent. The system does so much more than the one we used, and there is more potential than we expected. We needed to move to a standards based system using legacy data which their data processing staff transferred and upgraded within a day of receiving it. They have also provided professional, remote system instruction. We will let you know how year two compares! (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS got us through the pandemic and is now getting us through the "new normal" (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Outstanding system and support. Our young students love the OPAC interfaces and easy access to our information databases. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our library transferred its data to OPALS from another system this year. The switch was "magically" fast and the service since is remarkable compared with our previous experiences. We have not implemented all of the system's features yet, but are very pleased to date. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Excellent system and tech support! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our consortium members appreciate the direct access to service staff, fast response times, system updates and users meetings where our librarians control the agenda. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our students love using this system. They have even scripted and created their own "flip" OPAC video tutorials that we can post on our OPALS system library portal. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Year two of our library's transfer to OPALS and the level of after "sales" service is still exceptional. We activated the discovery search that retrieves database articles as well as print resources. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
I have used OPALS in our library since 2011. I will retire in 2023 and was pleased to give the system and its support staff top marks yet again. The system has evolved over the years responding to changes and unexpected challenges (ex. COVID-19). However their customer service competently and courteously, saw us through. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our system is supported by our regional consortium and "reinforced" up by the vendor / developer. We are very satisfied with the system and its services. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our regional school library system gives our small rural library access to over 300 school library collections in our region using its union catalog ILL program. In addition, we have advance booking access to STEM resources, multiple copy collections and many information databases using OPALS single sign on and discovery search services. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Outstanding support and technology, providing 24/7 access to our college databases, streaming video and ebook resources. We also use the IT equipment resources management program. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
This system was installed by our library director fifteen years ago. That director has retired and those of us who use the the system now are impressed how it manages our diverse media formats and is visible on our students' tablets, Chromebooks and desktops. Their customer service is outstanding. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
C'est un excellent système qui sert bien la recherche de nos étudiants du séminaire. (Library type: Theology; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This program, hosting and client services are so reliable. We do not hesitate to assign top level survey ratings. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our small public library adopted OPALS this year. We needed a robust, standards-based system that could conform to small community, eclectic culture at a sustainable cost. Crossing the bridge with our data was almost effortless and fast with the help of their tech support staff. We achieved these goals and plan to add more digital resources this year. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our island's 16 school libraries now use OPALS. Our staff and students are well served by the system and its support staff. (Library type: Library Personnel; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The ILS works very well. Their responsiveness and service is unmatched in our region! (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
The system is intuitive for our staff, professors and students. Hosting and support is reliable even to our continent, many time zones away! (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We implemented OPALS advance booking program to manage requests from branch libraries for STEM, kits and other centrally managed resources. Our regional services integrate and authenticate subscription databases, local and regional ILL OPAC research services and easy access to video streaming resources. Their staff helped us achieve all of these objectives and even tweaked the program to conform to how our members and librarians in our region actually work when requested! (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We changed library management programs in 2022. The new system is better and so is customer service. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We moved our existing library data to OPALS this year and merged another library's data and collection with ours. Hard to believe but all of this was stress-free, thanks to their staff. So far, we like the system and the after "sales" support. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We lend and return approximately 36,000 books in the school year to elementary school students who arrive in classes. Kids love to search the kid friendly catalog and even place their holds. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
An outstanding system and support these past 15 years. We helped them pioneer the digital resources discovery search giving our students and teachers a rich information resources buffet. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Fast, informative, individualized support. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have used OPALS for fifteen years, during which media resources we manage have diversified. While books are still popular and circulate well, our system includes digital resources requiring single sign on authentication, and discovery search integration. This system does it all, at a sustainable cost even for our small library. They even developed advance booking and curbside service functions enabling us to continue services during the pandemic. One thing that did not change over time, is the system's support services, which are still outstanding. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our elementary school students love using the kids interface option to search and that really was designed for them by elementary school librarians. As a librarian without any staff, this system enables me to multitask and move efficiently between circulation, cataloging, and reports. I work at a local public library on weekends and their system, which is many, many times more expensive, is such a contrast (not in a good way). (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We believe Koha will meet our needs regarding the enhanced functionalities needed in existing system. Koha support is readily available and mailing lists are active and respond very well. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We don't locally have electronic resources. We don't access customer support-we go through the cooperative. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We will begin the migration process in February 2023 to transition to OCLC, World Share Management Systems. Initially, we planned to perform the work over this past summer; however, we had to make a schedule change! As to the collection count, not sure where that number came from as it was very low when adding in the media and ebooks. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We do not manage our electronic collections through our ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Polaris overall is a good system but the lack of attention to detail is staggering and the process for suggesting improvements is beyond cumbersome. One example: When you do a search in the omnisearch box and do not get a match, the system should put the cursor back in the omnisearch box, as it does using their find tool. To even suggest a change you have to suggest it to their idea lab, have users vote on it, which usually ends the process. If it gets enough votes, the idea has to be voted on again, ranking it against other suggestions they are considering and then might be implemented in a future release. I'm no programmer, but how hard can it be to program an action that I can do with one click? In my mind, the only acceptable response to a suggestion like that is "Of course, How could we have missed that? We will fix it right away." I don't have time to give you the dozens of other examples. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are a high school library who needs to use the same ILS as our public library in order to be a part of its consortium and receive delivery and cataloging services. As a school library, the ILS doesn't really fit our needs since it is made for a public library. If I could, I would switch to a school-focused ILS like AccessIt. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our current ILS is shared by three libraries[...].The county is the owner of the system, and as such, will take the lead in any potential replacements. Currently there are no plans to change systems, and given the large initial cost to do so, it is not likely in the near future. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We're happier with the staff interactions with Polaris software, and with primary support, than we are with the CloudOps team for their hosting services. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Polaris has been great to work with, system is dependable and regular updates keep it current. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
My library is within a consortium environment, so I do not have direct customer service interactions with the ILS provider. However, there are multiple issue which the consortium has not been able to resolve due to the limited/lack of customer service/tech support provided. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Polaris a very stable ILS that is very full featured. We've been very happy with Innovative's support of the product with the exception of one incident. Our ILS is hosted, and after Innovative was acquired by Clarivate, we were moved to a server environment whose performance progressively failed. Innovative support eventually made it right, but it was stressful going for library staff for a while. I hope there will not be future unforced errors induced by Clarivate. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Overall, the staff at Innovative are nice, helpful, and knowledgeable. Recent development efforts are increasing and shows a promising future for customers. However, the release of new software has many issues and not all the features a user would expect, resulting in a feeling like we are paying to beta testing Innovative products. frustrating that it's left up to votes on what to improve and the fix as we go after release of a not ready product is suspect They have some good people on their team, but the overall vibe I get is often, "Submit an enhancement and hope for the best" instead of actually having a functioning product. Polaris Client is generally ok, but Leap still lacks some basic functionality, and don't get me started with Vega. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
I find that the catalogue (or entry for name) is not at all intuitive and sometimes will list an item under only title or only author, so you have to double check it if it doesn't show up the first time. Extremely irritating. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 3)
Since the Clarivate takeover customer service has been considerably worse. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Cost, Changes, and Redundancy (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Would need to do more research into open source ILS options. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We're interested in looking at a new discovery, but not a new ILS at this time. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We'd love a book club kit integration. We think some of the functionality we're looking for may be in Polaris Leap. Customer Support Services has gone somewhat downhill for us over the past year. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
I would have concerns about an open source ILS due to the lack of support usually associated with open source products. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Direct access to the database allows for more flexibility. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Innovative provides amazing customer service and responds quickly and troubleshoots effectively. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] is experimenting with an Innovative product called Vega. We find it promising especially its ability to retrieve content even if the search parameter is slightly misspelled much like Amazon's interface. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Since the library market is so small and the vendor choices have shrunk so much, ILS systems seem very take-it-or-leave-it in relation to what is offered. Assistance integrating product from other companies such as bibliotheca is fine to a point, but anything out of the ordinary is not even considered for enhancements to the ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The one thing that we'd like to see better developed is the PAC display for better discovery. We've been exploring overlays, but haven't found an inexpensive, optimal solution up to this point. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are part of a consortium, [...] . We are investigating other ILS systems and overlays to make our catalog more user friendly. I do not have direct contact with Polaris iii. It seems that every upgrade costs more money yearly. For example, their Vega overlay is a yearly cost to implement. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
We will be bringing on Vega Discovery soon, and I hope that will help with some of the search issues we see regularly. I also hope that longer term, electronic resources for consortia will be part of Vega. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
As the newest member of [...] , we are just one voice and have a great deal to learn. Polaris is a good system - we have had to adjust the way we sort our collection to comply with the rest of the consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Innovative's front-line customer service is good, but if libraries have an issue that that team can't solve, then the resolution rate is near zero. I am especially concerned that the Cloud hosting team has no basic best practices in place for customer communication regarding updates or outages, which has resulted in significant costs for libraries having to mitigate issues with staff and patrons that would have been avoided with the most basic communication. Escalation also results in zero change. The Polaris R&D teams are also overtly sheltered from customer feedback, which creates a mismatch between the features that customers need and the features that R&D delivers. For example, the recent addition of cataloging features to LEAP completely ignored the highest priority scenarios for any cataloger (OCLC integration), which made upgrading pointless. Polaris has many good features and is more stable than our last ILS Horizon, but we plan to investigate open source solutions in the future because we believe it will be less expensive to hire our own developer for the solutions we need rather than to continue to support Polaris's deep commitment to insulating their engineers from their customers. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
[..] is part of an IT outsourcing contract which further complicates this vendor relationship. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
When all Polaris features are working properly, the public facing catalog is user-friendly. Unfortunately, the auto-fill feature regularly stops working. Staff like the circulation interface. However, the acquisitions module is cumbersome and Innovative appears to have lost interest in improving this tool. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] libraries have migrated from VTLS Virtua to RERO-ILS (Open source) based on Invenio 3. It's a self hosted and self managed instance. The IT Team of [...] is collaborating with RERO+ Team in Switzerland in order to develop this Open source solution. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I did not respond to the satisfaction questions above, as [...] is both a library consortium and the software provider itself. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large)
me gastaría ampliar mis conocimientos en cuanto al tema de esta plataforma, no se esta utilizando ya que nunca he sido informada de como utilizarlo ni se me hizo capacitación alguna. sin embargo todo lo que tenga que ver con mejorar los servicios de la biblioteca es bienvenido. (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We would only be able to implement an open source ILS if there was support provided by a third part company. We don't have the staff to manage it and even implementation would be challenging with our small staff. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] will be joining Marmot in January 2023 and will no longer be dissolved. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Innovative's Sierra is not designed for a consortia with separate institutions sharing the ILS - it presumes that every item in the database is shared equally among every institution. Simple functions that were present in most ILSs decades ago are still not present, e. g. every Tuesday morning when all of the member libraries are simultaneously attempting to discharge the 'Tuesday morning new release day' books embargoed by publishers, only ONE library at a time can access that bib. record! All others get error messages saying that the record is in use and it can be hours before all the items newly released that day are finally discharged from 'In Processing' and become available for the public. 1980's minicomputers worked better than this. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)
We just completed an RFP as part of our consortium and the consortium has decided to implement FOLIO. My responses regarding the company's customer support refer to III/Clarivate and the little i know of their involvement. Most of our customer support is provided by our consortium office, which is excellent. (Library type: State; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
We are migrating to Koha, as supported by ByWater Solutions in the Spring of 2023. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Innovative has always provided a good product with good support. Sierra is a mature and full featured system. 24/7 support has greatly improved and expanded over the years with the addition of offices in Ireland and Australia. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
We feel that our current ILS provides a lot of bells and whistles that we don't need or use. Perhaps because of this very robust offering, the support contact rates are extremely expensive, even though we only use a fraction of what's available. We are currently migrating to an open source solution that is more basic, but also much less expensive in terms of support and maintenance. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Recently have been having a poor response to a range of requests - hence the low customer satisfaction scores. Reason why indicated would consider working with company again if it were to migrate to a new system, is that it is a very small market, so options are limited. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
When considering open source software, we would not be equipped to self-support. We will only consider open source with a full-service vendor for migration, hosting, and support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We have renewed our Sierra contract and are currently setting up the 'Sierra via SUMMON' option. We are hopeful that this will be a better option than the current OPAC and separate SUMMON setup we currently have in place. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Innnovative interfaces was bought out - we had hope to see customer improvement but haven't yet. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
We will be officially using WMS in June 2022. We are in the process of moving all of our material over now. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)
[...] (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)
As a member of [...], we have chosen to migrate to FOLIO (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
III's Sierra works - it's not the UBER ILS - it's just an effective ILS best for print- then again for Academic Libraries essential core ILS is what it's about. The Support desk by III has improved the past two years. Much faster and effective responses from III staff.. Weak are the portal "supportal" but seemingly all vendors portals are getting less effective more like a straightjacket. Once we are at live person things are better for communication/resolve. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
While I realize that Alma is ultimately owned by the same company as Sierra, the support for Sierra has dwindled and is more and more difficult to work with. As much as we'd love to go to a new company, Alma seems the path of least resistance - if only we could afford the startup costs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)
We have been dissatisfied with Innovative (Sierra) since they were taken over by an investment group and have been acquired and reacquired--dissatisfied mostly with customer service and support rather than the technology itself. If we were to move to an open source ILS/LMS, we would definitely need support from a vendor (eg. the FOLIO-EBSCO relationship) as we have very sparse library technology support personnel. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our institution is currently undergoing a complete overhaul of systems, servers, and how they are supported. As such, our current ILS is slated for replacement in 2-3 years. No formal discussions on options have been held at this point. The [...] consortia of which we are a member has already announced they will be migrating from Sierra to Folio/ReShare. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are currently negotiating a contract to migrate to Alma. Clarivate approached us. They said they are interested in moving academic libraries who are currently with Sierra over to Alma. When we first looked at Alma 8 years ago, it was cost prohibitive, but it is within the realm of possibility now. Sierra's ERM is dismal. We are looking forward to a cloud-based system that is highly integrative. Sierra was good, but we think Alma will be better. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
While Vega is the new "hot" product, this does not meet academic needs very well. Core functions (circ, cat, Encore, etc.) continue to falter with accessibility issues, font sizing, flexibility on tablets, etc. Product will not be considered unless adequate remedies to these issues are addressed. Very little contact with vendor and update/upgrade information, most is gleaned by twitter or newsletter, and newsletters (especially the Clarivate corporate ones) are not very relevant to day-to-day-operations. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
III improved quite a bit after being absorbed by ProQuest. With Clarivate, things continue to be pretty smooth, but I think they've made some cuts in their support area. Tickets not answered as quickly as previously (but still pretty quick and much better than pre-ProQuest) and some long-time support staff were let go. Hoping to see why Clarivate & III make sense. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We were considering Alma, but ExLibris's pricing seems to be solely based on how much they think we're currently paying (for our ILS and related products) and how much they think they can get out of us. They don't want to see the amount of money the parent company is getting from us reduced, so pricing is not based on FTE, users, or how much Alma is actually worth. Their quote included many "extras" we didn't ask for with descriptions of which non-ExLibris products we could replace with ExLibris products, and annoyingly, estimates of how much they thought we were paying for all those products. Basically, their pitch was "switch everything to us and we'll save you money in the long run (after paying for implementation)- assuming you drop all of your non-ExLibris products!" No thanks. Because of this, we are very annoyed with ExLibris and strongly considering moving to an open source ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We have been disappointed with support in the sales area in general. We are a small consortium and while we have worked hard to make service improvements we do not have a large budget. We will soon be unable to continue with Innovative because of cost alone. We will have no option but to migrate to a more affordable product regardless of functionality. We have seen some improvement over time with the Support tickets. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Please disregard my responses to the Academic Discovery Service portion of this survey. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
It will depend on monetary cost as well as staff workload (we're a small shop). (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Sierra is primarily designed for managing print resources, but it leaves a lot to be desired in managing electronic resources. They do have some tools designed for electronic resource management, but they almost always come at an additional cost which prevents us from taking advantage of them. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Collection count above represents bibliographic records in the library catalog. Our responses about the company focused on Innovative Interfaces, Inc. rather than parent and superparent companies, Ex Libris, ProQuest and Clarivate. (Library type: Theology; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are just beginning the process of seeing where our current ILS doesn't meet our needs. After this we will likely start the conversation on migrating to a new system (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Considering Vega as a Discovery tool (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We do not have IS systems support to administer an open source ILS. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
The consortium loves Innovative, that is the reason for the answer "would the library consider working with this company again." We've been with Innovative for something like 30 years and would not leave no matter what they charged or what they did. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
There are concerns within the library on how Innovative Interfaces/Clarivate will position Sierra as we heard from Clarivate representatives that Sierra will be positioned for public libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The format of our collection at this time is driving our decision. We understand that our collection is likely to change drastically in the next few years and are looking towards the future as we make any decisions about a product. (Library type: Law; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)
While customer service for Sierra has improved over the past year, we have made the decision to migrate to Koha for ILS and Aspen for discovery in 2023. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
Customer service is usually pretty good, but sometimes you need to escalate tickets to the experts who really know how to solve the problems. Highly disappointed with ERM. It is not COUNTER-5 compliant. Acquisitions is very good for print, and fund reporting. Future considerations are neutral as the landscape of future products in unknown. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our state consortium - [...] - stands as a barrier between its member libraries and Innovative Interfaces, giving the actual software users no voice in bug reporting or product improvement suggestions. We have found no user-helping-user online forums, either hosted by Innovative or third party. (By contrast, our previous ILS - Follett - had corporate resources available to all users.) [...] librarians are forced to deal with the state bureaucracy to gain any sort of input to Innovative Interfaces, and it seems to be a standing joke on our listserv that Innovative will just ignore any input from the [...] having gained what is presumably a statewide contract for ILS services. It does not help with tech support for patrons that SIERRA provides two separate OPAC choices with entirely different interface. Yes, the statewide ILL consortium is essential for a modern library, but either the software is poor or [...] doesn't implement it efficiently. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
As a public library, our users primarily search for physical materials. Encore integration with our eBook vendor OverDrive is working well, and we are on board to cutover to Vega Discover in January 2023. For eResources discovery, we direct users to a LibGuide to browse/search our electronic databases. We also have bib records to direct users to electronic resources if they began their search in the catalog. We had Encore Discover before and usage was low on electronic resource discovery. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are in the process of migrating from Sierra to Alma (Library type: Academic; collection size: large)
We are more interested in a Discovery platform and patron communication methods than a new ILS. As you have noted, it would be great if these were integrated with the ILS. We also need an ILS that is mobile-friendly. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
In terms of software, Sierra is ancient. server/client software has no place in this application anymore, it should be over secure html. Sierra has only survived because of monopoly pressures. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
While open source may have been more of a possibility in the past, the competition for developer talent has made it difficult for higher education to compete with the corporate world with regards to salary and overall work flexibility. That will hamper any real consideration. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are with the [...] Consortium. Without them, our tiny library would not be able to handle all of the technical work that comes with the [...] Consortium. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Innovative was great, but we have not observed enough of the Clarivate takeover to know if it will continue to thrive. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
We did not answer "How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services?" because we do not interact directly with the vendor, but use our consortium. We answered Not Likely to "Would the library consider working with this company again if it were to migrate to a new system in the future?" because Sierra is no longer being marketed to academic libraries. We would consider a different Clarivate/Proquest/Ex Libris/Innovative product in future migrations if it met our needs. We were actively involved in the [...] ILS RFP process and are looking forward to migrating to FOLIO because it is an eresource centered product, and eresource compose about 90% of our collection. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Sierra is clunky, user unfriendly, and just plain outdated. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Our library is a member of [...]. Of course, we will go with whatever platform is selected, however... after working with ByWater and EBSCO for many years on various projects, I am very hopeful that something might develop with FOLIO. Having worked in Kentucky for many years as a systems librarian and director, the one thing I miss about not being a part of a large group is the ability to innovate and save money with open source applications. I very much miss my Koha ILS, EDS, and OpenAthens. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
I get the impression we're being taken for granted. Limited reviews or interactions (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We do not use the ILS to manage our electronic resources. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We[...] have already chosen OCLC's WMS system and are in the midst of migrating to the new system. We cannot wait to get into the new system and feel that the support we are getting from OCLC has been exceptional. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 0)
Thank you for doing this work! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
The main dissatisfaction with Sierra ILS is the load profile/load tables. They are outdated and time intensive. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are part of [...] and are undergoing an ILS RFP process (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We have been with III since 2004 after moving from VTLS. We are part of a consortia of mostly small libraries with three small/medium sized libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have very little influence over the selection and implementation of our ILS as we are a small library in a big consortium. Our current product (Sierra) causes us much frustration, from its 1980s-style interface to its instability. We love our consortium support team but it seems that the vendor is not always responsive. The product may be at the end of its support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
At the very beginning of investigating and comparing other systems. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our library does not have a systems librarian, so we are limited in what we might want to choose in an open source system given our lack of technical/systems expertise. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Likely migrating to FOLIO in 2024. Alma/Primo, FOLIO, and TIND were under consideration. A significant number of library staff were concerned with market consolidation and wanted to choose an ILS that would better align with the university's mission and values. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are in the middle of a system migration from Sierra to WMS. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
The most difficult part of all ILS is training and maintaining staff ability. The library needs good educational support for new hires, updates, maintaining staff training and change in position. We are going into a time where it is very hard to hire. Creating user friendly and easy to use systems is important. Manageable learning, basic knowledge skills and efficient work tasks help managers and staff work together and support all patrons in the library. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
La [...] de biblioteques municipals de la[...] has 245 libraries + 10 bibliobus. We use the same SIGB. We can't decide if i want to work with another, but there another programs like ALMA more effectives and moderns as Sierra. The migration could be really caotic: volumes, electronic books, journals, training programs for all workers, ... (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We will select an ILS as a consortia. In theory, we will accept bids and demos from any ILS vendor (at this point in our process). (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
My main complaint about this ILS is it's reporting abilities. It takes me hours to put data together from various reports just to get the particular circulation data that I need. When I had a standalone, I was able to obtain this information in just a few seconds. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
Sierra is managed through several platforms/softwares. Would be extremely easier to have it all combined to manage. To have certain products included in a contract but takes a charge for set-up is misleading. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are in the very early stages of investigating options but are interested in a long-view of where we want services to be in 10+ years, not only solving immediate problems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We find our vendor support fairly good but sales support has been inadequate. Our original vendor has been recently bought out by Clarivate, so we are monitoring support closely for any changes in levels of support. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
My ratings reflect our library's experience. Apparently our network's membership feels differently, hence the search for a new vendor for the OPAC. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Whatever migration we undertake would be under the auspices of [...] , so any individual choice or preference of this library is dependent on the consortial considerations. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
MPL Express Branch (Kiosk Location) (Vending Machine Library) Closed in late 2021.[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: very small)
Vendor-led training on the various products is very expensive. Access to additional useful components (inventory, ERM, catalog scopes) is cost prohibitive. Full access to products already available to institutions through Sierra (load tables, ASAA, etc) requires individuals at the institution to pay for expensive training in order to gain access. We cannot fully experience, utilize, or customize the ILS because of these financial limitations. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We migrated from Innovative's Millennium product to their Sierra product during the past year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The [...] Library system of which we are a part just completed an RFP and we chose to stay with Sierra. We migrated to cloud hosting in Fall of 2022. We have had a number of issues arise with Sierra, whether glitches, suddenly missing fields, etc. Sierra has not been as responsive as we would expect in resolving issue or being proactive. We hope that changes as we continue a relationship. Sierra could be more innovative in terms of supporting e-resource management and generally updating the products to reflect today's modern library and data needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
New LMS - Spydus has given lots of problems since we started using it in March and in general the response time is slow (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Civica have worked hard to improve their customer service levels, and pro-actively work alongside our systems support teams to identify barriers and push through resolutions. There is room for improvement but they are on a good path here. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The vendor does provide a lot of different enhancement option for the ILS. Sadly, due to the budget restrain and other complications, we cannot afford those enhancement which can make our experience better. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
None. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are looking into implementing BlueCloud Circulation in the next year or so, as it seems there has been more work done to meet all of our needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
AS WE ARE PART OF A CONSORTIUM WE DON'T INDEPENDENTLY CONSIDER MIGRATING FROM OUR CURRENT ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
I love my state library consortium. We would not have an ILS if it were not for the state library dedicating partial funds and FTE to the implementation and maintenance of an ILS for participating libraries. This survey is not showing me the questions regarding the Discovery product. We are in need of a discovery product and wish our state library consortium would bring this option back for us to participate with. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Being part of a larger consortium works well for us, allowing us to make use of others' expertise. The negative is there is less inclination challenge ourselves to learn new skills. Most who work here have only used the SirsiDynix product so have not experienced any other LMS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
No comment (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Symphony is a frustrating system to navigate. Many staff use the catalogue instead of the system due to the more user friendly interface. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Sirsi has a good product and even better people! (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
We would appreciate the ability to automate one-off copy catalog record imports. We would appreciate more of a streamlined ordering and invoice management process. We look forward to SirsiDynix dedicating more resources to modernizing the customer interface and experience. While we are satisfied with SirsiDynix, we are always considering options from qualified organizations providing similar services. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Overall it has good functionality but system is complex and time consuming to deal with. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are very dependent on the consortium for these decisions. Our library is understaffed and with out the management by the coop tech would drown us. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
In-House vs. Saas is a more important criteria than proprietary vs. open source. If Saas model makes most sense, it doesn't matter much whether the software is open source or not--you're reliant on vendor support. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Library leadership has long been dissatisfied with the high price we pay to SirsiDynix. Price is the main factor in our willingness to migrate. Koha seems to have come of age, developing into a fully functional system, at a fraction of the cost. Bywater has built an excellent reputation for implementation and support. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I would love to move to an open source solution, but I also value being a member of a large consortium, giving our small library access to a larger collection. I think moving such a large consortium to an open source solution would involve a definite commitment from the state of [...] and member libraries to hire and retain the support staff to facilitate both the transition and upkeep. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
SirsiDynix technology has been stagnant for too long. BLUECloud is still underdeveloped. Any significant updates to Symphony require customers to make additional investment, e.g.: SymphonyWeb, Data Control, etc. As wonderful as the people of SirsiDynix are, the products are largely overprices and irrelevant. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are happy with the backend of the ILS. Enterprise is just too outdated for patrons and has been since the around 2010. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our library has signed a contract to migrate to Ex Libris Alma product in 2023 (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
As part of a consortium, our decisions regarding choice of ILS are limited. We chose to spend more money on a different discovery interface from a separate to improve the patron experience, accepting that we will continue to deal with issues on the back end and with customer service from Sirsi. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We migrated from EOS.Web to Symphony this year (2022). (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Tired of longstanding custom reports and processes breaking with Workflows/Symphony. It's the worst of both worlds: updating is a big deal due to software installs/breaking reports, but the updates don't seem to add a measurable increase in functionality. And it still looks like the 1990s, so you immediately lose credibility with new hires. Would like to switch to BCcirc and other BC products, but functionality isn't there for even the most basic staff functions. Everything is done by reports, yet the reports are formatted in the worst possible way for setup, printing, opening. I see support requests for updated report formatting that are 15 years older and more. They do seem to be finally focusing on BCcirc to a point it's almost a viable option for us. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
[...] provides 90% of the support directly to our libraries. Any queries not able to be managed by the support team are then directed to SirsiDynix support. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
At the price point we are relatively ok with using Sirsi. It works. We are stuck with it because we're part of a state wide consortium that uses it. The support through the [...] is great, but many staff who have worked with various other systems miss a lot of the options that Workflows doesn't have. The public side is way better than the staff side in most of our opinions. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The BLUEcloud suite is still incomplete or missing some essential features, particularly regarding reports, that make it difficult to convince users to move toward those products. More libraries want native integration with Google applications. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are strongly considering a migration to FOLIO in the year 1-3 years. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
One of the strengths of this vendor is their support model, the APAC support team are very quick to respond to issues, and they offer a very good customer support portal. There has been good development with their mobile app and digital content management, but there are still improvements that need to be made with vendor app integration and Discovery Layers. Overall we are very satisfied with the performance of this vendor, and we have a very positive working relationship with them. We would like to see further continuous development of the core products. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
While our overall satisfaction with SirsiDynix Symphony is high we are frustrated by the slow and uneven pace in bringing BlueCloud to a level of maturity and functionality that meets our needs. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Symphony is a very good program but it often times lacks when it comes to rolling out new features when requested. The features it does have work very well. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The main reason we use the current vendor's system is the ability of the system to cater for a consortium and the flexibility to cater for the complex needs of the various libraries within the consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Is this library currently considering migrating to a new automation system? We would consider migrating to another system based on the consortium satisfaction and feedback. How likely is it that this library would consider implementing an open source ILS? We would consider open source based on functionality and security, not solely the fact is open source. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
I would rate SirsiDynix much higher if we administrated it locally, and not as part of a consortium. I have used it in previous positions and believe that were we at liberty to configure it to our needs alone, the Symphony ILS would fulfill all needs within our system very well. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Real-time reports are clunky and it's difficult manipulate the report output. We can't really speak to its management of electronic resources. We can do the bare minimum of downloading bib records for econtent (eaudio & ebook). We don't use all features of their eResource central product, relying primarily on Bibliocommons & Overdrive API for supporting econtent access for patrons. We are very impressed with customer support, SIRSI consultants and SIRSI library relations managers. They are responsive and assist as much as possible with any service issues. It is difficult for ILS vendors to survive in the current market, but we wish SIRSI didn't have to continually develop new products to improve their revenue picture. We would of course prefer they invested more resources in existing products (some of which were introduced in 2016 and still not are fully functional, e.g. BC Circulation) (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Symphony works fine for the core functions of the library, but Sirsi is always promising developments and never delivers. The software looks and acts like it is from the 1990's because it is. With the power of computing and the depth of library data, there is so much more that we should be able to do, but can't because we are shackled to our ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)
The Symphony interface is just too antiquated. It leads to many mistakes by new circulation staff members. Circ staff experiences the most turnover in every library. BlueCloud analytics is quite powerful but was clearly developed by techies for techies. Too labor intensive for most library staff to learn. We are a small rural library without dedicated training staff so most of BCA goes to waste. SIRSI client reps are lovely and eager to help but they can't overcome disadvantages of product. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Our consortium is the primary contact with SirsiDynix. We are limited in the products/functionality of the ILS by scalability and consortium choices. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Utilizing ILS as part of a consortium. Find the interface challenging due to inability to access multiple windows simultaneously and difficulty running reports. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
We have chosen to change ILS in 2023. We reviewed all options available to us and have chosen Koha. Will plan to start migrating from Feb 2023 (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
I am relatively new as the Chief Librarian in our little Library so not sure how relative my responses will be! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our main gripe with Sirsi is that everything can had be had - at a price. The customization options are good, and some things feel worth paying extra for, but many just feel predatory. We understand when things are truly custom that that is worth compensating for. But when things are "virtually" on the shelf and merely need to be turned on/off, it feels like they are taking advantage of their customers. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We will follow the lead of our consortium which is looking for a new LSP (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The SirsiDynix Enterprise discovery service is configured for our institution to use EBSCO EDS APIs to provide access to database content. In addition, information and holdings from our Symphony ILS is also part of our implementation of Enterprise. Enterprise does not support full Boolean searching capability. SirsiDynix has a project in place to develop a new discovery interface that will hopefully support Boolean searching. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Sirsi Worksflows serves us well via our [...] consortium. We get good support from [...] reps. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
As we need to put out an RFP, my thoughts are that Folio and Alma will be the vendors that will be able to meet the needs of the mixed consortia of the [...]. Folio is intriguing but not sure if they will be ready for a consortia of our makeup when the RFP is published. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large)
We have two discovery systems: we use SirsiDynix's Enterprise for print materials, with its DAMS Portfolio being used for large collections of digital materials, and Ovid DS to give access to our e-resources. The two companies are pretty close performance-wise. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] has given their member libraries the option of being "IT independent," meaning we would rely on services provided by an outside contractor or in-house IT person instead of on the overburdened [...] staff. Those of us who have chosen to go independent are not permitted to use WorkFlows (the software client), but must use the web-based ILS (Symphony Web). [...] is citing security issues as the reason for this (which makes no sense to me, but that's beside the point). SymWeb is very glitchy, not very functional, and, in fact, crashes a lot. So I'm very interested in finding a vendor that offers a strong web-based service. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
We are currently forced into using SymphonyWeb, a screenscrape of WorkFlows, which was already an insult in its client/server version. It is unstable and is not compatible with our RFID. Considering anything other than a SirsiDynix product, although the consortium is clinging to SirsiDynix for some unknown reason. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)
I previously worked at another library system that used Koha, and much prefer this system. Even though it looks dated and isn't "in the cloud," it almost never experiences outages or bugs, whereas Koha was a nightmare. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are a member of the [...] . I've answered above as it relates specifically to my library St. Pete Beach Public Library. The entire cooperative has 1896009 items according to the count items report I just ran. No library in the cooperative uses a discovery platform. We did trial one in 2018, but it was not adopted. At that time I was the IT director for the cooperative's ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The library is migrating to the [...] in May, 2023. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
This survey of library automation is largely missing the mark due to a focus only on the ILS. Library automation as described by Breeding since 2015 as Library Services Platforms, which is a software platform comprised of an ILS, discovery, data analytics, mobile interfaces/apps, notification systems (email, SMS, phone automation), and library engagement. It is rare that a single vendor is able to provide all of the needs of a Library Services Platform, and the interoperability of all of this is critical. The [...] consortia is using SirsiDynix Symphony ILS, ByWater Aspen, EBSCO Discovery Services, Unique Management MessageBee, OCLC WorldShare, and SirsiDynix BLUEcloud. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have been a longtime customer of SirsiDynix. Symphony and Enterprise met most of our needs for both staff and customers for most of this time. But, in the past few years we've seen development stagnate on the web-based staff client and Enterprise. BlueCloud Circulation still lacks important features that we need to use it fully at our service desks and the development roadmap doesn't address these features. Development on a new, robust discovery product is also lacking. We've lost trust that SirsiDynix can provide a system that meets our needs in the next 5-10 years. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
[...] Consortium. They would make the ILS decision to change vendors. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Slow to launch anticipated features -- e.g. "list" features were bogged down in the "product pipeline" and "on the development roadmap" for years. Without the ability to plan for new functionality, libraries may face difficult choices to build their own solutions or "bolt on" services from multiple providers. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Have been impressed with the level of support from SirsiDynix, and the speed of responses to queries. We are still a mainly print based library, so a good LMS is essential. Symphony as our back end is not the prettiest, but our audience has been pleased with the discovery layer. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] has been with SirsiDynix since 1999. The company has continued to grow but they have been quick to resolve trouble tickets. Since Covid, SirsiDynix and its users group have continued conferences online and it appears to be successful. SirsiDynix continues to roll out new products and use customer input. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We went live with Symphony on 12/15/2022. We have only actively been using the system for one week because we were closed for the holidays. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Overall the support has been pretty good since the merger with Dynix years ago. However, SD still tries to sell software before it's even been written! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
SirsiDynix has a good product, it is not always the most user friendly and it lacks some minor features, but overall is solid. Their customer support and training staff are top notch, they always respond quickly and are very knowledgeable. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Open Source Considerations would be decided by the Library Consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Vendor is willing to consider new integrations with other vendors in support of our organizational goals and strategies. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
SirsiDynix's BLUEcloud product has been in the offing for many, many years however the BLUEcloud Circulation offering keeps missing the mark. It still isn't ready to be used by every day staff for every day circulation purposes and there are many, obvious, features that one would expect to find still not available. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are part of the [...] Consortium and therefore have not completed the scoring above for our individual authority. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small)
We're part of the [...] Consortium. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
While impressed with their customer service, we feel the lack of development of a true web product will likely see us moving to a different ILS in the future. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
The library purchases our ILS as part of a consortium, and the decision to migrate to an alternative vendor would be made at the consortium level. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
SirsiDynix does supposedly have products under development that may better suit our needs, but the development process seems very protracted! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Sirsi is the least user-friendly ILS I've dealt with. The "help" tabs are nearly unintelligible for staff. Public facing mode is very clunky, and frustrating for patrons. We would not have chosen this system if it wasn't provided by our cooperative. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
Thank you! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
La biblioteca realizó la implementación de Folio a final del año 2022. Aún se encuentra parametrizando y ajustando diferentes opciones, de manera que no es posible asignar una calificación objetiva a las preguntas planteadas. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small)
We just migrated from SirsiDynix Symphony to the new ILS on February 28, so it is still new to us and still trying to make it work. So in all fairness to Bibliovation, we have to give them more time to clean up all the kinks. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are currently migrating from DSpace to the TIND IR platform. Will be live in Q1 2023. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We're very happy with AutoGraphics. They continue to upgrade their systems and resolve open tickets requesting enhancements. Their help portal is very responsive, although I rarely need to use it. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The customer support from Verso is excellent. They are very responsive and are usually able to fix an issues we encounter. The functionality of the system, however, is lacking. However, the price point is also very appealing for a small public library with a limited budget. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
We have issues with Verso that won't let us search more than once without refreshing the entire search page. If I search a book by a title, and then want to search for another book by title on the advanced search page I am not able to. I have to hit Advanced, refresh the entire page, and then I can start over. We also have an issue with Verso occasionally not telling us if a book is actually in the system. It's often enough that we can search a book by title (double checked), ISBN, and author, and the book won't come up, but then we order another book and have two of them (one having already been in the collection for awhile) that we don't always trust the system and often double check with our own physical cards to make sure we don't own a book before reordering. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
I am the new Library Administrator at[...] . I am new to both AutoGraphics and VERSO. The library board and the previous Library Administrator spoke very highly of VERSO, the responses I listed above was based on what I was told by them. I'd like to speak with someone regarding a tutorial on your product, [...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Don't know what "open source ILS" means, therefore answer is sketchy. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
AG Verso is a dated product in terms of appearance and it has too much functionality for the small libraries we support. We would rather the focus be on streamling the interface and make it more user friendly than on unraveling all the features on the back end of this product, most of which our libraries don't need. All your improvements seem aimed at features they wont' use and it just seems to get more expensive. $1350 a year is a large amount of some of our libraries budgets and that's a large part of the reason we're looking elsewhere. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
I'm not sure who manages the interlibrary loan system, but my library has a problem with it and no one can seem to figure out what the problem is. however, it is now fixed. Maybe I was the problem. I have been here less than a year, so some of the questions are some that I am not familiar with (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The support services are excellent and they always respond in a timely manner. I have no complaints. The biggest problems I have is a thorough knowledge of the system. Some of the reports I want are not done in a clear manner. Examples are new items. This needs to be weeded through for only books that are purchased. It includes everything from ILL's to monthly magazines. Other times I have been delighted when I find what I need. So as you can see it could be a case of the operator, not the system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Auto Graphics Verso isn't a bad ILS, but it is a frustrating one. It seems every time there is an update, something that was working well, does not work well after the update. Also I feel Verso is a bit clunky and requires too many "clicks" to get things done. I've worked with it for 8 years, and still have to search all over to find the correct reports I want to run. And have only called support once, a few months back, which didn't resolve my issue, and basically was told that issue could be happening. (when I do an advanced search by title and type in the title exactly, Verso "spell checks" and changes my search wording......weird. Anyway, we will continue with it, until our consortium changes. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We use Verso AG the reports functions leave a lot to be desired - it is neither user friendly or comprehensive. A recent report to pull ebooks added on a specific date also pulled dvds, and print books - none of the records for the dvds or print books were incorrect (listing them as ebooks). (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Over time the integration of our ILL with our Verso system gets better with time, but still has limitations. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
I'm horribly fond of Verso, but would rather enjoy if I could peruse patrons alphabetically to make sure we haven't any error accounts or typoed items. Likewise, being able to search through library items based on call number, I.E., searching 741.5 to be able to survey our entire graphic novel collection, would be nice. Thank you. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
The ILL management system is wonderful even with a few glitches, which may be operator glitches. It is a little cumbersome to delete holds. Its a little difficult to get to a record that needs to be edited. All of these things may be lack of knowledge on the operators part. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Customer service responsiveness continues to be one of the main reasons for satisfaction with Auto-Graphics VERSO. Development and improvement, especially in non-English language compatibility and in mobile device usability, is slow. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] is very small. I am the only employee. So integrating or migrating a new system would be very difficult given the number of hours I work (both paid and unpaid). (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
An answer of 4 was given to questions that don't necessarily pertain to the library at this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We do not have electronic resources within our catalog so that is why the score for that question is low. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Open source library systems would be considered, but on-site personnel would be necessary. I think some of your names and descriptions for reports are not really helpful. Trying to come up with what we are trying to survey for a report is difficult. May be that I just don't use the function enough, but simple searches for statistics should be simpler. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Overall it is a good ILS but some areas could be better. It would be nice if we could customize several areas. Especially in overdue letters (print and email) and in reports. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
In the ILL system, we regularly encounter problems where we marked an item returned and the lending library has marked the item recieved (no longer displaying in ILS) but the item still shows up on the patrons account. We have to take the ILL item barcode, copy that, paste it into checkin. The system makes a noise but does not show anything checked in. However, when you go back to the patron account, the ILL item has been cleared from their account. The limit on number of characters for patron notes is EXTREMELY problematic. We have lost notes due to the character limit and are now forced to use a separate program specifically for note keeping which wastes staff time and leaves a much larger margin of error. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The ILS works very well in most of the usual circumstances, but we have discovered several issues that we have had trouble getting fixed, including having links be "invisible" because the link font matches the background font. Also, the report writer does no offer all of the options we might want, though often there are canned reports that almost work. The search function in the ILS also seems to have issues where the item being searched for does not always show up at the top of the search results, even if you use the exact title. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
More flexibility in culminating reports. There are fields in the patron record that do not show up in a report as well as being able to culminate a report by checkout date or due date. We have approximately 450 laptops that can be checked out for a semester. A set due date is given. There are times, when I need a report for all individuals that are due on a specific date. Currently, the report information has to be manually sorted to remove people that have renewed early. We need more options to customize the report. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
I don't like the suggestions generated by a search in the Verso OPAC. They are rarely helpful and usually confusing. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We continue to extensively weed large microfiche collections (due to vinegar syndrome) and older reference materials which is why the collection size has shrunk pretty dramatically. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are reasonably satisfied with Ex Libris as a vendor for Voyager, but would not consider upgrading to Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
Voyager suits our needs well, but now that LC is moving to FOLIO, we are concerned that Voyager's lifespan may be dramatically shortened and we may need to start looking at other options. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are planning to migrate from Voyager to Alma/Primo in spring 2023. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We have reviewed a number of systems with an eye towards migration and have chosen FOLIO. We plan to migrate during the '24 - '25 academic year. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are very satisfied with the customer support from Ex Libris for Voyager but are not as satisfied with the customer support for Primo. The likelihood of migrating to a open source system is highly dependent on future staffing levels. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We have received two RFP's for replacement of our current Voyager ILS, and are in the selection process. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Still waiting for open source products to be a bit more developed before making a committment. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have niggles about the system but nothing major and we have confidence our supplier is improving the product in consultation with us. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our library continues to be satisfied with WorldShare Management Services. WMS's cataloging efficiencies continue to be remarkable. Enhancements are provided to the system frequently and are clearly communicated by OCLC; the user community is active and engaged. Configuration and documentation are complex -- we are still finding errors made by our staff during implementation and our adoption of OpenAthens -- but OCLC Support Staff have patiently and expertly guided us through these problems. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
WMS is a decent ILS for small or medium sized institutions. Not a lot of flash, but it gets the job done. We were Alma/Primo customers for 6 years, and when we were facing a dramatic budget cut, we asked Ex Libris for a break from inflation for a year, and they refused to cut us a good deal. So we walked away and saved $40K a year. How sustainable are those 5% or 3% increases for smaller institutions that are not part of a consortium? Ex Libris is pricing themselves out of the mid and small university market. Which is a shame because it was a great discovery service and a Cadillac of an ILS. But the truth is, we were never going to take advantage of all those features. And as a cataloger, WMS is much easier to manage and train others on how to use. It's rather basic on the labels and the letters; it can be inflexible at times for orders and barcode changes, but it works. And it saved us a lot of money. At the end of the day, I shouldn't be cutting resources to pay for my inventory resource management system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Statewide consortium looking at folio (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
The vendor provides no transparency in their pricing and is non-responsive to issues that have been known for years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Within the current environment there are concerns about market consolidation, about OCLC restrictions on metadata use and ownership, and opaque system pricing arrangements with ongoing increase lacking clear connection to measurable use. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
My responses are unchanged from the previous year's survey. Although system functionality is generally sufficient to support our needs, tickets to the vendor take months (or longer) to resolution when they are necessary. In some cases, this means that we avoid submitting tickets because it isn't worth the effort. There is some promising functionality on the product roadmaps for 2023--for instance, blank ILL forms for Discovery, the ability to submit correction requests directly from WMS Collection Manager, etc.--but it remains to be seen whether these additions will live up to our expectations. Still desired is the ability to perform shelf reading and inventory simultaneously from within WMS Circulation and without requiring use of the Digby app. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are a values-driven organisation, and we share OCLC's desire to progress diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and to promote engagement with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Overall, OCLC delivers consistent functionality and service for its core WMS modules (circulation, metadata/KB) but others have little use to us (license manager, acquisitions). Group circulation continues to be a valued feature. That said, our issues with OCLC focus on the lack of transparency in its stated product roadmap, strategy in interlibrary loan functionality and partnerships, enhancement request communication, and most importantly in its institutional pricing. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We moved to OCLC WMS in August 2021. We are still developing some aspects of the system but overall we feel that the system is meeting most of our requirements. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are just beginning to consider evaluation of other services. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Our campus IT has limited staff, and I have been advised on multiple occasions not to consider open source products because we do not have the staff across campus to support it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Folio does not seem fully developed yet. We are considering migrating due to recurring performance issues with OCLC's WMS. It is my understanding that having developers on staff may be necessary for Folio libraries and we do not really have that so we do have some hesitations. We're happy enough with WMS but the Folio price point is appealing and lately WMS has been having several performance issues that are recurring. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We're very satisfied with our ILS because we're able to utilize multiple modules from them which creates a much simpler and consistent workflow. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
The system is not as sophisticated as our previous ILS, but meets our needs affordably. Their customer service has been much better, which is one of the reasons we migrated away from our previous vendor. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
ILS not suited to the operational needs of large French academic libraries ; problematic with linguistic issues ; bibliographic base filled with numerous duplicates ; many problems with launching of new features ; restricted bulk actions (number of units, deleting action, etc.) ; (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Unfortunately, library budgets within higher education have been getting cut and the vendor product pricings have increased. We will need to make decisions on prioritizing systems and resources provided. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
OCLC is driving me crazy. It's very hard to convert .mrc files to KBART, and that's all they'll let you upload, which is STUPID since most vendors provide .mrc files. And their customer support expects you to have a degree in computer science.... argh argh argh (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
Although OCLC has good intentions in soliciting feedback from participating institutions regarding WMS modifications and enhancements, the organization pushes out too many upgrades during the year. With so many upgrades, fixes, and enhancements, WMS service is often disrupted. Some periods of disruption are quite severe, occurring almost daily. 2022 was especially noteworthy, with multiple disruptions during academic semesters. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
As a special subject library we understand that no ILS will fit our workflows perfectly, our specialized nature is the reason for some of our lower rankings. (Library type: Museum; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We chose our ILS (Worldshare) because of the price point. Its reporting functionality is not great, and the lack of capacity to batch edit/delete is a burden (especially during large weeding projects). (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We have OCLC Knowledge Base and use it for electronic resources. Our dissatisfaction with OCLC WMS are directly related to the fact we did not purchase the report designer module or any additional modules for electronic resources licenses. We do have discovery (WorldCat Local was discontinued) and when those article links do not work, we cannot access those links directly to correct them. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
|
|
|