The International Survey of Library Automation provides a unique opportunity for libraries to evaluate their core technology systems, their associated vendors, and to offer their views on relevant topics and trends. This seventeenth edition of the survey received 2,300 responses. The 48,063 cumulative responses received since 2007 document interesting and important trends related to key technology products and vendors.
Note: This edition of the survey includes revised text and statistics derived from previous version. The report is not completely rewritten with each edition.
of Library Technology Guides.
| Notable Observations |
|---|
| Libraries show generally positive perceptions for products from Clarivate Library Software Group. The migration intentions given by libraries using legacy products mention Alma more than other products. Polaris was listed as the top migration candidate by libraries using Symphony and Horizon. |
| Interest continues to build for open source products, especially FOLIO and Koha. The migration intentions given by libraries using legacy products mention FOLIO more than any other product except Alma. Open source products are a routine option for public and school libraries as well. Both Koha and Evergreen show high levels of satisfaction, though some support providers receive higher scores than others. As ever larger libraries implement open source products, the satisfaction scores may decrease given the harsher scoring of large libraries. OPALS used mostly in school and very small academic libraries, earns superlative scores. Narrative comments suggested that many libraries avoid open source products due to a perception that they would need more staff with technical skills. |
| Several legacy products are approaching the end of their lifecycle. Installations of Aleph and Voyager from Ex Libis, part of Clarivate Library Software Group, are decreasing rapidly and the products, though they continue to be supported. Millennium and Virtua installations have declined even more drastically. Almost all libraries using these products have processes underway to move to new systems. |
| About 5 percent of academic libraries signal interest in migrating to a new system, mostly from those remaining on legacy ILS products, but also from those that have been using a library service platform for a decade that are reviewing options. Academic libraries showed increasing interest in migrating from 2007 through 2014, with steadily declining interest since. The launch of Alma and WorldShare Management Services in 2011 sparked great interest, which peaked in 2015. After that year the percent of academic libraries considering migrating diminished as large portions of these libraries had moved to a library services platform and were well occupied in implementing and optimizing those new installations. With FOLIO now established as a viable option, academic libraries that were previously deferring migration considerations may now be in play. |
| Among larger academic libraries, the satisfaction scores given to Alma are moderate, consistent with those given by large and complex organizations. Only a handful of libraries indicate interest in changing to another product. Of libraries considering migrating from legacy products, Alma continues to be listed as the top migration candidate, followed by FOLIO. Alma receives higher marks for its functionality for the management of electronic resources than for print. Since academic libraries generally spend most of their collection budgets on electronic resources, weaker capabilities for managing print does not seem to detract substantially from the overall satisfaction levels for Alma. |
| The portion of public libraries considering system replacement has declined steadily since the first year of the survey. The high interest among public libraries in migration during the early years of the survey was driven by the industry turmoil. Since about 2015, public library interest in migrations has steadily declined, possibly due to the lack of compelling alternatives. This year only 3.3 percent of public libraries expressed interest in changing systems. The proprietary and open source ILS products used by public libraries are mature and increasingly less differentiated. Many public libraries are opting to acquire additional components for discovery, patron engagement, or analytics, rather than make a lateral move to another ILS product. |
No library management product can be expected to work well for all libraries. Public, academic, school, and special libraries each have distinctive characteristics relative to the types of material in their collections and in the services they provide. The type, size, and overall complexity are important factors when considering the technology products and services best suited for any given library. Accordingly, this survey segments responses into categories determined by library type and collection size to assess each product within relevant peer groups. Each annual survey provides a snapshot of the perceived capabilities of each product, and uses results from previous years to identify trends regarding the satisfaction and performance of the products their vendors.
The satisfaction ratings and narrative comments gauge library reactions surrounding the broader events in the industry, such as consolidation, open source initiatives, and the decline of legacy products. Earlier years of the survey, for example, reflected the negative impact the private equity acquisitions on SirsiDynix and Innovative. More recently survey responses inferred that libraries reacted mostly positively to ProQuest acquiring Ex Libris and Innovative from their previous private equity owners. The last two years of the survey reflect whether or not library satisfaction of the products of Ex Libris and Innovative are different under the ownership of Clarivate.
Survey responses give a glimpse into ongoing migration trends. Academic libraries are shifting away from integrated library systems to library services platforms, with Ex Libris Alma leading the pack, followed by OCLC WorldShare Management Services. FOLIO has fully entered the competition, with survey results showing strong interest. As the number of libraries that have implemented FOLIO increase, the survey can begin to reflect the levels of satisfaction and capabilities of this new open source library services platform. Public libraries show substantially different patterns, with lower levels of interest in migrating to new systems.
Several themes pervade all editions of the perceptions survey. Large libraries of all types have complex requirements and evaluate their systems on a much harsher scale than smaller organizations. Presenting results without regard to size categories would give misleading impressions. Products designed for small libraries would not be successful among larger and more complex institutions, despite superlative ratings by the small libraries that use them.
In the current environment, the capabilities of the product and the quality of services from the vendor matter more than license models. Both open source and proprietary products are well regarded by libraries. Conventional integrated library systems prevail in public libraries, with top scores going to proprietary products in the largest tier and to those based on commercially supported open source software in the mid-size category. Small and very small public libraries also gave excellent marks to proprietary ILS products. Small libraries give superlative scores--with little differentiation among question categories--to products able to meet their basic requirements without complex features they don't need. In the academic library sector, survey results reveal notable patterns regarding library services platforms. These products received strong marks in most categories but are not rated as highly for managing print resources than legacy ILS products.
I appreciate all the individuals that took time to respond to the survey this year given the many other issues competing for their attention. Each response contributes to a growing body of data available for the broader library community to consider when considering options on whether to retain or replace their strategic technology products. Libraries have always relied on recommendations from their peers as they make system decisions. This survey provides a large aggregation of evaluative data that can complement more in-depth conversations that libraries considering a system would have with specific reference sites.
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Top Performers
- Caveats
- Demographics
- Migration Trends
- Industry Consolidation
- Clarivate
- Innovative
- Ex Libris
- OCLC
- SirsiDynix
- The Library Corporation
- Biblionix
- Book Systems
- Civica
- Follett School Solutions
- OPALS
Koha
Evergreen
FOLIO
Academic Discovery Services
Selected Statistical Tables
Survey details
Introduction
- Introduction
- Top Performers
- Caveats
- Demographics
- Migration Trends
- Industry Consolidation
- Clarivate
- Innovative
- Ex Libris
- OCLC
- SirsiDynix
- The Library Corporation
- Biblionix
- Book Systems
- Civica
- Follett School Solutions
- OPALS
The 2023 Library Automation Perceptions Report provides evaluative ratings submitted by individuals representing 2,300 libraries from 68 countries describing experiences with 80 different automation products, including both proprietary and open source systems. The survey is titled according to the year in which the report is published rather than when the survey period started.
The survey results include narrative comments providing candid statements -- both positive and negative – about the products and companies involved or statements of intent regarding future automation plans. This report analyzes the results of the survey, presents a variety of statistical tables based on the data collected, and provides some initial observations. It aims to provide information to libraries as they evaluate their options for strategic technology products and to the organizations involved in providing these products and services as constructive criticism to help guide improvements.
A new feature enables readers to search the narrative commants across all years of the survey. Searches can be limited to responses for a specific ILS product or to responses from libraries indicating that they are considering migrating to a new system.
| Selected Survey Findings: Top Performers |
|---|
| Mid-sized public libraries gave Koha with support from ByWater Solutions highest ratings in all categories: for overall satisfaction, print resource management, electronic resource management, customer support, and company loyalty. Very small public libraries gave ByWater Solutions second highest scores in all categories except for print resource management. |
| Large public libraries rated SirsiDynix Symphony highest for overall general ILS satisfaction, overall ILS functionality, print resource management, and for customer support. |
| Small public libraries gave Atriuum from Book Systems highest ratings for general ILS satisfaction, print resource management, and electronic resource management. Atriuum was ranked as a close second in the remaining categories. |
| Among large academic libraries Alma was given highest scores for general satisfaction, overall ILS functionality, electronic resource management, and company loyalty. Sierra earned top scores for print resource management and customer support. Among mid-sized academic libraries Alma received top scores for general satisfaction, ILS functionality, managing electronic resources, and for company loyalty. |
| Apollo from Biblionix received top scores in all categories for very small public libraries. Among small libraries Apollo led in customer support and company loyalty. |
| Polaris received top ratings by large public libraries for electronic resource management and for company loyalty. Small public libraries gave Polaris highest ratings for overall ILS functionality. |
| Library.Solution from The LIbrary Corporation saw a sharp improvement in ratings, receiving the highest scores for customer support than in any previous year. |
| OPALS earned top ratings in all categories for K-12 school libraries; highest in most categories for small academic libraries. |
Previous editions: 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007.
Libraries make major investments in strategic automation products, both during the initial implementation period and in annual fees paid for support, software maintenance, and other services. They depend on these products for efficient management of their daily operations and to provide access to their collections and services. This survey report allows libraries to benefit from the perceptions of their peers regarding the quality of automation systems and of the performance of the organizations involved in their development or support.
Libraries in immediate need of replacing their current system, or in the process of making longer term technology strategies, benefit from data across a variety of sources as they assess options. Technical documentation, marketing materials, product demonstrations, product vision statements and functionality checklists represent some sources of information to help libraries evaluate automation products. The vendor community naturally provides information and materials that presents their products in positive terms.
Another important avenue of investigation involves data from libraries with first-hand experience of the products and vendors. This survey aims to measure the perceptions libraries hold regarding their current automation products, the companies that support them and to capture their intentions about future migration options. It also explores interest in open source library automation systems, a key issue for the industry. Though its large number of responses, the survey aggregates the subjective experience of many libraries to create meaningful results, reasonably informative about the collective experience of libraries with this set of products and companies.
The survey allows only one response per library and only one response per individual. This approach ensures that no one library or individual can disproportionately impact survey results. The survey checks for existing responses from each e-mail address or library record number in libraries.org as part of its validation routine.
Confidentiality and Anonymity
The survey preserves the anonymity of the individuals responding as well as the institutions with which they are associated. Although response records contain data identifying the institution and the responders, extensive measures are taken to protect these data. Only the administrator of the survey has access to the raw survey response records. The tables of statistical summaries, interactive reports, and narrative reports are designed never to reveal identities of individuals or institutions. The survey publishes any narrative comments given in the responses. While preserving the original response comments, a duplicate of the comments are made in the survey records, with any identifying wording redacted. Names or institutions are replaced with a symbol indicating redaction: […].
Caveats
Any interpretation of the statistics must be seen in the context that larger and more complex libraries do not rate their automation systems as favorably as small libraries.
Libraries may refer to the results of this survey as they formulate technology strategies or evaluate specific products. Although the impressions of libraries using a given product inform one area of investigation, libraries should be careful not to overemphasize the statistics or narrative comments in a procurement process. While it reflects the responses of a large number of libraries using these products, the survey should be taken more as an instrument to guide what questions that a library might bring up in their considerations than to drive any conclusions. Especially for libraries with more complex needs, it's unrealistic to expect satisfaction scores at the very top of the rankings. Large and complex libraries exercise all aspects of an automation system and at any given time may have outstanding issues that would result in survey responses short of the highest marks. While a given product may earn positive responses from one sector, it may not be a good choice for libraries with different requirements.
Constructive criticism
The survey results also aims to provide useful information to the companies involved in the library automation industry. While many companies perform their own measures of client satisfaction, this survey may show perceptions quite different from internal customer surveys. The rankings in each category and the published comments can represent provide useful data to assist each of the companies hone in on problem areas and make any needed adjustments to their support procedures or product directions.
Survey Response Demographics
| Collection Size Categories | ||
|---|---|---|
| count | more | less |
| 147 | 0 | 10,000 |
| 679 | 10,001 | 50,000 |
| 279 | 50,001 | 100,000 |
| 359 | 100,001 | 250,000 |
| 237 | 250,001 | 500,000 |
| 167 | 500,001 | 1,000,000 |
| 271 | 1,000,001 | 10,000,000 |
| 34 | 10,000,001 | |
| 127 | No collection size data | |
| 2300 | Total of Categories | |
This year, the survey attracted 2,300 responses from libraries in 68 different countries. The countries most strongly represented include the United States (1,740 responses), followed by Canada (135), Australia (92), United Kingdom (83), Spain (24), New Zealand (24), Sweden (17), and Ireland (12). As with the general demographics of the libraries.org database, the respondents of the library primarily come from libraries in English-speaking countries.
While the vast majority of responses continue to come from libraries in the United States, the survey aims to address the international library automation arena. This year the survey form was offered in English, Spanish (translated by Nieves González), French (translated by Alexandre Lemaire), German (translated by Susanne Schuster), Italian (translated by Andrea Marchitelli), Finnish (translated by Petri Tonteri ). Responses received from Spanish-speaking countries, included Spain (43), Argentina (3), Chile (3), Colombia (5), Mexico (7), and El Salvador (1). A total of 682 of the $TotalResponses total responses (24.8 percent) came from libraries outside the United States.
The survey received 2,300 responses: ( 2022=2,750; 2021=2,849; 2020=2,849; 2020=2,902; 2019=3,234; 2018=3,552; 2017=3,992; 2016=4,042; 2015=3,453; 2014=3,141; 2013=3,002; 2012=3,030; 2011=2,432; 2010=2,173; 2009=2,099; 2008=1,453; 2007=1,779 ). Across all its editions of the survey, the cumulative data collected totals 48,063 responses. The survey was open between October 24, 2023 and March 18, 2024.
There were 127 responses with no collection size data provided. These libraries were not able to be included in the parts of the analysis where libraries are segmented by size categories.
Public libraries were represented in largest numbers, with 930 responses, followed by academic libraries with 782. This year 225 responses came from school libraries.
The Survey Demographics Report summarizes the library types, countries, and products represented in the survey results:
General Information about the Survey
| Product | count | report |
|---|---|---|
| Alma | 409 | ils report |
| OPALS | 279 | ils report |
| Symphony | 251 | ils report |
| Sierra | 200 | ils report |
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 157 | ils report |
| Polaris | 137 | ils report |
| WorldShare Management Services | 122 | ils report |
| VERSO | 119 | ils report |
| Apollo | 66 | ils report |
| Atriuum | 65 | ils report |
| Library.Solution | 52 | ils report |
| Horizon | 48 | ils report |
| Evergreen -- Equinox | 45 | ils report |
| Destiny | 40 | ils report |
| FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services | 30 | ils report |
| Spydus | 28 | ils report |
| Koha | 22 | ils report |
| Carl.X | 22 | ils report |
The survey attracted responses from libraries using 80 different ILS products. Those represented by more than 20 are shown in the accompanying table, with links that generate a report providing the survey results for that product for each year the survey has been offered. Many other products were represented in the survey with few number of responses. Systems with less than 10 did not appear in the main statistical tables. These responses can be seen through the individual ILS Product Reports.
This report is an original publication of Library Technology Guides and is not slated to appear in any print publication. Please direct any comments or enquiries to the author. The execution of the survey and compiling its results represent hundreds of hours of effort. If you find this report helpful, please consider making a donation to Library Technology Guides.
This survey and its analysis reflect my ongoing interest in following trends in the library automation industry. It is designed to complement the annual Library Systems Report feature that I have written between 2002 and 2012 for Library Journal and since 2013 for American Libraries. The survey underlying the Library Systems Report article relies on information provided by the companies that offer library automation products and services. The survey that serves as the basis for this article collects data from the libraries themselves.
Survey Results
Migration Patterns and Trends
The survey provides the opportunity for libraries to indicate interest in migrating to a new system and what candidate systems are under consideration. The percentages shown reflect the number of responses where the library indicated that it is shopping for a new system relative to the total number of responses for that product. This table summarizes responses where the library indicates it is shopping for a new system.
| Percent of Libraries Considering Moving to new ILS | Current ILS | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALEPH 500 | 9.1% | 13.6% | 11.9% | 18.9% | 25.7% | 34.6% | 40.4% | 45.7% | 55.3% | 64.6% | 66.9% | 75.0% | 78.3% | 65.0% | 81.5% | 77.3% | 76.5% |
| Alma | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 25.0% | 16.7% | 4.3% | 2.3% | 2.5% | 1.2% | 3.2% | 3.7% | 3.4% | 4.3% | 3.7% | 4.4% |
| Apollo | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 3.5% | 0.9% | 0.0% | 1.8% | 2.9% | 1.1% | 2.7% | 2.2% | 6.1% |
| Horizon | 49.3% | 61.5% | 45.2% | 57.3% | 54.7% | 49.7% | 45.4% | 42.2% | 34.9% | 28.6% | 31.6% | 35.0% | 25.0% | 34.1% | 17.3% | 19.2% | 29.2% |
| Library.Solution | 12.1% | 3.3% | 8.7% | 14.3% | 14.4% | 13.6% | 12.9% | 10.8% | 18.3% | 12.4% | 25.2% | 22.5% | 16.4% | 10.3% | 18.9% | 13.3% | 11.5% |
| Millennium | 6.4% | 8.6% | 11.7% | 18.7% | 31.2% | 42.4% | 45.3% | 56.9% | 65.5% | 75.0% | 71.3% | 74.2% | 82.1% | 87.5% | 77.8% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Polaris | 1.6% | 9.4% | 6.5% | 5.8% | 1.9% | 1.2% | 0.7% | 5.3% | 7.9% | 7.3% | 7.9% | 8.1% | 8.4% | 7.3% | 6.5% | 5.3% | 3.6% |
| Sierra | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 3.1% | 6.4% | 10.8% | 12.9% | 13.4% | 19.2% | 21.4% | 33.1% | 31.4% | 34.8% | 46.0% | 40.0% |
| Symphony | 14.9% | 23.1% | 15.8% | 20.2% | 22.5% | 20.4% | 20.4% | 20.8% | 18.0% | 18.6% | 19.8% | 18.7% | 16.7% | 17.5% | 15.5% | 20.7% | 15.9% |
| Voyager | 21.6% | 21.8% | 19.5% | 32.3% | 38.3% | 49.4% | 50.9% | 67.5% | 69.2% | 66.7% | 69.7% | 83.1% | 82.4% | 75.0% | 70.8% | 70.0% | 73.3% |
| WorldShare Management Services | -- | -- | -- | -- | 0.0% | 0.0% | 3.1% | 4.1% | 3.2% | 6.0% | 7.0% | 9.2% | 5.1% | 10.5% | 9.7% | 11.2% | 15.6% |
General Migration Trends
The portion of libraries indicating that they are actively considering changing systems has decreased since 2014. Peak interest for moving to new systems peaked in 2008 when over a quarter of libraries responding to the survey were considering migrating to a new system. At that time, many academic and public libraries were using legacy products that no longer meet thier needs and were ready to explore new alternatives. This year the total percentage of libraries indicating they are considering changing to a new system was 11.75%, the lowest since the survey was launched in 2007. The lower percentage seems to indicate that many libraries have now moved to products that they are reasonably happy with or that they do not see alternatives with better capabilities that would warrent the cost and disruption of migration. (percent of all responses: 2023: 11.8%, 2022: 13.7%; 2021: 12.3%; 2020: 13.9%; 2019: 16.5%; 2018: 15.5%; 2017: 16.6%; 2016: 16.7%; 2015: 18.4%; 2014: 20.7%; 2013: 16.2%; 2012: 20.9%; 2011: 23.5%; 2010: 20.1%; 2009: 18.6%; 2008: 26.9%; 2007: 23.5%).
Some opportunities remain for new procurements with almost all of libraries still using Aleph, Voyager, Millennium signaling plans to change systems. The number of libraries remaining on these products is limited, as reflected in the rapidly diminishing responses to the survey.
Migration intentions: Public and Academic Libraries
The percentage of libraries looking for new systems over the span of all survey years reveals some interesting patterns. The portion of public libraries considering system replacement has declined steadily since the first year of the survey. The high interest among public libraries in migration during the early years of the survey was driven by the industry turmoil associated with the acquisition of SirsiDynix by Vista Equity Partners and its unpopular strategy of moving all its customers to Symphony (previously Unicorn) meaning that libraries using Dynix, Horizon, and Corinthian would be forced to change. This turmoil spread more generally with a sense of distrust for vendors of proprietary systems, sparking interest in open source alternatives. Since about 2015, public library interest in migrations has steadily declined, possibly due to the lack of compelling alternatives. This year only 3.3 percent of public libraries expressed interest in changing systems. The proprietary and open source ILS products used by public libraries have all reached mature levels of functionality and may not offer enough differentiation to make it worthwhile to endure the cost and disruption associated with procurement, migration, and training.
Academic libraries showed increasing interest in migrating from 2007 through 2014, with steadily declining interest since. The launch of Alma and WorldShare Management Services in 2011 sparked great interest, which peaked in 2015. After that year the percent of academic libraries considering migrating diminished as large portions of these libraries had moved to a library services platform and were well occupied in implementing and optimizing those new installations. About 5 percent of academic libraries continue to show interest in migrating, mostly from those remaining on legacy ILS products and those that have been using a library service platform for a decade that are reviewing options. The launch of the much-anticipated FOLIO library services platform is also contributing to interest among academic libraries for investingating migration options, including some that may have previously implemented Alma or WorldShare Management Services.
Both public and academic libraries stated less interest in changing systems in 2021. This patterns can be seen as due to the pandemic, where libraries were dealing with other more serious issues, deferring consideration of system changes. Migration intentions resumed the previous patterns in the 2022 and 2023 survey results.
| Percent of Libraries Considering Moving to new ILS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Total Responses | Academic | Percent | Public | Percent |
| 2023 | 2300 | 118 | 5.1% | 76 | 3.3% |
| 2022 | 2750 | 168 | 6.1% | 105 | 3.8% |
| 2021 | 2753 | 117 | 4.2% | 78 | 2.8% |
| 2020 | 2850 | 186 | 6.5% | 118 | 4.1% |
| 2019 | 3234 | 282 | 8.7% | 131 | 4.1% |
| 2018 | 3552 | 295 | 8.3% | 165 | 4.6% |
| 2017 | 3993 | 361 | 9.0% | 184 | 4.6% |
| 2016 | 4042 | 375 | 9.3% | 179 | 4.4% |
| 2015 | 3459 | 322 | 9.3% | 190 | 5.5% |
| 2014 | 3143 | 331 | 10.5% | 205 | 6.5% |
| 2013 | 3003 | 180 | 6.0% | 152 | 5.1% |
| 2012 | 3032 | 281 | 9.3% | 239 | 7.9% |
| 2011 | 2432 | 231 | 9.5% | 242 | 10.0% |
| 2010 | 2173 | 131 | 6.0% | 242 | 11.1% |
| 2009 | 2099 | 113 | 5.4% | 227 | 10.8% |
| 2008 | 1453 | 105 | 7.2% | 214 | 14.7% |
| 2007 | 1795 | 86 | 4.8% | 278 | 15.5% |
Legacy Products
Three products, now all associated with Clarivate, show signs that they have entered a final phase of thier product cycle, with over 70 percent of the libraries using them stating interest in migration (Aleph: 70.6; Voyager: 66.7; Millennium: 100%). These products have not been offered to new customers for many years and increasing porportions of those using them are ready to move on to new systems. Millennium received responses from only 3 libraries, all of which indicated plans to migrate. We can anticipate that the numbers of libraries using these products to decline in the next few years. The number of responses from libraries using Aleph and Voyager have steadily diminished, down to about 15 each. We cannot expect complete extinction of any of Voyager or Aleph for quite some time since some libraries continue to appreciate their advanced capabilities for managing print resources. Response trends point to the demise of Millennium in the short term. Historically, ILS products have shown very long product cycles, remaining in use by some libraries many years beyond the time that they receive development. Their vendors tend to provide minimal security releases indefinitely, but also offer incentives entice libraries to move to their new offerings.
The academic library arena remains in a phase of migrations away from legacy products. The survey provides some indicators which may indicate the direction of future migrations:
- Aleph: 17 libraries responded; 71 percent indicated interest in migration; (10) included Alma as a replacement candidate; 5 mentioned FOLIO; and 1 WMS. Loyalty score: 7.06. Interpretation: high possibilities that most libraries currently using Aleph will eventuall migrate to Alma.
- Voyager: 13 libraries responded; 67 percent indicated interest in migration; 6 included Alma as a replacement candidate; 7 mentioned FOLIO; 0 mentioned WMS and 2 mentioned Koha. Loyalty Score: 6.4. Interpretation: the remaining Voyager sites will be divided between FOLIO and Alma.
- Millennium: 2 libraries responded; 100 percent indicated interest in migration; 1 indicated Alma as a replacement candidate; Responses were too few to calculate loyalty score. Interpretation: The libraries remaining with Millennium are not likely to migrate to Sierra or thay would have already done so. Other possibilities include staying within the Clarivate fold and implementing Alma, moving to FOLIO, or other current products.
Supported products with higher migration interest
Another group of products continue to be supported by thier vendors, but with survey responses indicating a moderate number of libraries consideration of moving to new systems. The drivers behind these migration considerations vary among the respective products. Horizon from SirsiDynix has generally seen a trend since 2010 of a diminishing percentage of responses indicating interest in migrating, though the number of responses has fallen. This year 27 percent (13 out of 48) indicated interest in changing to a new system, none of which listed Symphony among thier replacement considerations. SirsiDynix asserts that it will continue to support Horizon for the indefinite future. Libraries using Horizon are increasingly considering alternatives, though not quite to the extent of libraries using legacy products.
A growing portion of libraries using Sierra indicate interest in migrating to new systems, including 80 out of 200 (40%) responses received this year (2012: 3.1%; 2013: 6.4%; 2014: 10.8%; 2015: 12.9%; 2016: 13.4%; 2017: 19.2%; 2018: 21.4%; 2019: 33.1%; 2020: 31.4%; 2021: 34.8%; 2022:45.9%). For libraries using Sierra, the systems identified for migration candidates included Alma (48), FOLIO (23), WorldShare (13), Polaris (5), and Koha (5).
Large and mid-sized academic libraries give Alma high ratings for overall functionality and for electronic resource management, but give it weaker scores for managing print. These libraries give Sierra, Symphony, Aleph, and Voyager higher scores for managing print resources. Given that academic libraries spend ever smaller proportions of their collection budgets on print resources, perceived weaknesses in this category does not diminish the strategic impact of library services platforms such as Alma and WorldShare Management Services. Small academic libraries, which use Alma as members of consortia, generally gave Alma lower ratings. Alma’s ratings show strengths in larger academic institutions and for managing electronic resources. The libraries using Alma indicate very low interest in changing systems. Academic libraries using legacy systems identify Alma as a migration candidate more than any other product, followed by FOLIO. All these factors can be seen as indicators of the continued momentum of Alma among large and mid-sized academic libraries. FOLIO is well into its implementation phase, with 37 libraries responding to the survey this year. The migration indicators from the survey show that FOLIO will be the main challenger to Alma going forward among academic libraries.
Low migration interest
Products with only negligible interest include Polaris (3.6%), Alma (4.4%) and Apollo (6.1%).
Two other products received migration intentions at a moderately low level. 11.5 percent (6 out of 52) of responses from those using Library.Solution from The Library Corporation flagged interest in migrating to a new system. 15.6 percent (19 out of 122) of those using WorldShare Management Services indicated interest in migrating.
In order to identify potential patterns of future system migrations, the survey asks for the names of the products that the library is considering. In most cases, the responses included multiple products under consideration. The candidate systems mentioned may indicate serious evaluation or mere name recognition. Tabulating the names of the products listed shows strong interest in Alma (89), FOLIO (79), Koha (41), Symphony (11). WorldShare Management Services (34) Polaris (24), and Sierra (2). When asked about open source interest regardless of active plans to change systems, 132 mentioned Koha, 143 mentioned FOLIO, 41 mentioned Evergreen, and 1 mentioned TIND.
FOLIO can now be considered a full competitor as a library services platform for academic and national libraries with hundreds of libraries now using it in production. This year 37 libraries using FOLIO responded to the survey, spanning 3 service providers: EBSCO Information Services (30), Index data (4), and SCANBIT Technology (1) as well as 1 implementing FOLIO independently of a service provider. FOLIO has been mentioned by a growing number of libraries as a possible migration candidate. (This year 79 libraries looking for a new system listed FOLIO among products under consideration; (2022: 102; 2021: 86; 2020: 88; 2019: 104; 2018: 65; 2017: 59; 2016: 41).
The following table summarizes data provided on survey responses relating to whether the library is planning to migrate to a new system in the near future and candidate systems under consideration.
| 2023 Migration Intentions | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current ILS | Resp | Shopping | Percent | Academic | Alma | WorldShare | Polaris | Sierra | Symphony | FOLIO | Koha | Evergreen | TIND | |
| ALEPH 500 | 17 | 13 | 76.5 | 6 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Horizon | 48 | 14 | 29.2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Library.Solution | 52 | 6 | 11.5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Millennium | 2 | 2 | 100.0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Sierra | 200 | 80 | 40.0 | 46 | 48 | 13 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 23 | 5 | 0 | 0 | |
| Polaris | 137 | 5 | 3.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | |
| Symphony | 251 | 40 | 15.9 | 12 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 0 | 5 | 7 | 11 | 7 | 0 | |
| Voyager | 15 | 11 | 73.3 | 5 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 1 | |
| Any Product | 89 | 34 | 24 | 2 | 11 | 79 | 41 | 15 | 1 | |||||
Note: These figures represent the number of times each product was mentioned among the candidates listed. The matrix lists only selected current ILS products and candidate systems under consideration. The sum of values given at the bottom of each column represents the total number of times the product was mentioned as a replacement candidate, including for products not among those selected for the table. The highlighted values indicate where the candidate system mentioned is provided by the same company as the incumbent.
Industry Consolidation
Survey results help document the impact of the changes in the business landscape. Following the acquisition of SirsiDynix by Vista Equity Partners, survey results for Symphony and Horizon dropped and eventually recovered once harsh product strategies were withdrawn; further improvement was seen when SirsiDynix was acquired by ICV. Innovative saw diminished satisfaction ratings when it was sold to private equity and improved when Innovative became part of ProQuest. Aleph and Voyager generally saw satisfaction improvement following Ex Libris acquisition by ProQuest, though Alma’s ratings seem unaffected.
The acquisition of ProQuest, including Innovative and Ex Libris, by Clarivate completed in December 2021, corresponds to somewhat higher satisfaction ratings for Alma and Sierra and lower ratings for Polaris.
This year’s survey captured several comments that address industry consolidation.
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. A recent a positive move is that they started showing more interest in revitalising their discovery offerings with plans for a new interface utilising a current framework, and the introduction of AI and Linked Data integration within their offerings around Q4 2024.
Regarding our perception of functionality: With Alma being an inventory-based system (whereas previous systems our institution worked with were more metadata-based and more focused on the bibliographic record) some of the functionality that libraries had with our previous system, Sirsi symphony, has been lost. Regarding our perception of the company: The acquisition of ProQuest/Ex-Libris by Clarivate has had an effect on our perception of Ex-Libris as a company -- we are unhappy about the acquisition and the resulting narrowing of choice in library vendor options available to us and our colleagues. Regarding our perception of custom service: We have noticed a great deal of variation in our customer service interactions with Ex-Libris. While there are many strengths to Ex-Libris' customer service approach (e.g., speedy acknowledgement of tickets in the support portal, an active customer listserv, a transparent and votes-based annual enhancement and development process), we have had a number of very negative customer service interactions that have dragged down this overall score.
Vendor support is poor--tickets remain open and unaddressed for long periods of time, and enhancement requests are limited. Service has declined as the company has been acquired by other firms to the point where Cory Doctorow's term for platform decay aptly fits the product. The Community Zone, through which records are imported into our institution inventory, lacks adequate records for new materials being acquired by large academic research libraries.
With Clarivate's acquisition of ProQuest/Ex Libris/III/RefWorks/EndNote/etc., we are very concerned about the viability, pricing, data and customer privacy, and customer service of their products. Unfortunately, we are unable to reliably deploy FOLIO except via a third-party cloud host, which seems antithetical to our goals and concerns. We will also still be anchored to OCLC for EZProxy, because OpenAthens appears to be a patron data-grab that suffers from frequent reliability issues. Finally, FOLIO's discovery layer is extremely problematic, and their creation of a legacy catalog is a huge red flag.
Consolidation of sales reps/customer service has happened since the buyouts, and now we have a new sales rep from ProQuest who doesn’t know the product. The front-line help desk staff don’t really know answers either, and you need to escalate a ticket to get someone who knows what they are doing. Seem to have lost all of our customer information, talking as if we were self-hosted, we are not; they are hosting our server, and having no clue that we have had SSO since 2015. I actually had to send them proof that we’ve purchased and setup SSO and we are paying yearly maintenance on it. Non responsiveness from customer service. We are tired of Innovative nickel-and-diming us on things that should be covered by our maintenance fees.
International Perspective
The survey aims for a broad international perspective. Responses were received from the international clients of the systems commonly used in the United States as well as those that may be used primarily within other geographic regions or countries. A total of 1,006 responses were received from libraries located outside of the United States. Many of the products more familiar outside of the United States did not receive an adequate number of responses to appear in the main statistical tables.
| International Responses | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product | Total Responses | United States | International |
| All Products | 2,300 | 1,740 | 560 |
| Alma | 409 | 232 | 177 |
| Symphony | 251 | 167 | 84 |
| Sierra | 200 | 167 | 33 |
| Polaris | 137 | 127 | 10 |
| VERSO | 119 | 118 | 1 |
| WorldShare Management Services | 122 | 100 | 22 |
| Apollo | 66 | 65 | 1 |
| Library.Solution | 52 | 51 | 1 |
Selected Companies and Products
Clarivate Library Software Group
Clarivate, a large public company, provides systems and services spanning multiple business areas, including Intellectual Property, Life Sciences & Healthcare, and Academia & Government. The company became public in May 2019 through its merger with Churchill Capital Corp. Clarivate acquired ProQuest in 2021, which had previously acquired Ex Libris and Innovative. The Clarivate Library Software Group is part of Clarivate Academia & and Government, which includes both the Ex Libris and Innovative brands and thier respective systems and services. The Clarivate products represented in this year's survey are described in the following table.
| Clarivate Library Products | |
|---|---|
| Product | Responses |
| Alma | 409 |
| Voyager | 15 |
| Aleph | 17 |
| Sierra | 200 |
| Polaris | 137 |
| Millennium | 2 |
| Virtua | 3 |
| Total | 783 |
Academic discovery products part of Clarivate Library Software Group include Primo, Primo VE, and Summon, all based on the Ex Libris Central Discovery Index. Patron products associated with Innovative include Vega Discovery and other products within the Vega LX suite.
Innovative Interfaces, Inc.
Innovative Interfaces develops and supports a variety of technology products for libraries, Its Sierra ILS is used by academic, public, and special libraries thoughout many global regions; Polaris is used mostly by public libraries in North America, though it has recently expanded geographically, including a major implementation in Singapore. Innovative has also developed the Vega LX suite of patron-facing applications that works with both Polaris and Sierra.
The company was acquired by ProQuest in the beginning of 2020. In December 2021 ProQuest was acquired by Clarivate.>This year's survey provides the opportunity to note any changes that may be due to new ownership and management. In the last two years, Sierra saw increases in satisfaction across all categories, with the the strongest improvement seen in general satisfaction and support. Polaris satisfaction scores have dropped since 2021 following significant improvement from 2019 to 2020. It is also important to note that while the Polaris scores dropped during this period, Polaris scores are still generally higher (general satisfaction = 7.36) than those for Sierra (general satisfaction = 6.25).
Libraries of all types and sizes have implemented the products of Innovative (view company profile). The company was well represented in this year’s survey results with 195 from libraries using Sierra, 131 using Polaris, 2 using Millennium, and 3 using Virtua, or 331 in total.
Innovative has seen changes in its ownership over the course of this survey. These business transitions have had at least some impact on the levels of satisfaction for the products involved. The first business transition took place in March 2012 when its founder sold the company to a pair of private equity firms. The impact the change of ownership is reflected in a steady downward trend in satisfaction scores from 2013 through 2015. Innovative acquired Polaris in March 2014. A downward trend in satisfaction corresponded with the transition of Polaris as a standalone company to ownership by Innovative. VTLS was acquired by Innovative in June 2014. The satisfaction ratings for Virtua have been erratic throught all years of the survey, making it difficult to interpret the drivers for change in any given year. Innovative was acquired by ProQuest in January 2020. Under ProQuest, there has been a pattern of improving satisfaction across Innovative's products. ProQuest was acquired by Clarivate in December 2021.
Sierra
Sierra (full statistical report and narrative comments) has been implemented by many types of libraries throughout many international regions. This year responses were completed by 195 libraries, including 80 publics, 66 academic libraries, 9 consortia and 4 special libraries.
Loyalty scores were weak overall (5.67), mid-sized academic (4.00) expressing the least commitment to acquiring their next system from this company. Sierra received its lowest scores in the category of functionality for electronic resources (mid-sized academics: 3.05).
When considering ratings given over time, ILS Support declined significantly from 2012 (7.96) through 2019 (5.16). Support scores improved noticably for 2019-2020, indicating a positive impact of the transition to ownership by ProQuest. This year's support score decreased slightly to 6.02. General satisfaction likewise increased in 2019-2020 (5.92 > 6.22), with this year's scores mostly level (6.25). Innovative generally saw a steep decline in performance ratings during its period of private equity ownership (2012-2019). Its ownership by ProQuest has prompted more positive satisfaction ratings, with the recent integration into Clarivate showing slight decreases. Loyalty scores were slightly higher this year.
The portion of libraries using Sierra signaling plans to change to another product has steadily increased since its launch in 2011. In 2012, 3.1 percent indicated interest in changing, climbing to 46% in 2022, though decreasing to 40% this year. Of all the currently supported and developed products, Sierra showed the highest number of migration intentions.
Sierra, though still widely used by libraries, is not specifically marketed to new customers. Within the Clarivate product suite, Alma ranks as its strategic product for academic and research libraries with Polaris marketed to public libraries. Some additional libraries may migrate to Sierra by joining consortia or networks with existing implementations. For existing Sierra implementations, the product will be supported and enhanced indefinitely.
Perspective: The overall use of Sierra continues to drift toward public libraries and its overall implementations will diminish over the next few years. Within the Clarivate product family, Ex Libris Alma is positioned as the strategic product for academic and research libraries and Polaris as the strategic product for public libraries. Libraries rate Sierra's capabilities for print resource management (7.27) much more highly than its functionality for electronic resource management (4.60). Large public libraries give Sierra much higher overall satisfaction ratings (6.90) than do large academics (5.38). These trends suggest that Sierra, though a fully supported product, will eventually see a decline in implementations. 40% of responses indicated plans to migrate, with Alma (48) and FOLIO (23) mentioned most as replacement candidates. Given the very long product cycles for ILS products and its ongoing use by many high-profile libraries and consortia, we can expect that Innovative will continue to support and perform some development on Sierra for many more years. The improved response scores for all response categories for the 2020-2021 suggest that the product is receiving more attention under Clarivate than it did under private equity ownership.
The following table presents the 2023 survey results by library type and size:
| 2023 Sierra Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sierra | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 195 | 6.25 | 23 | 5.70 | 21 | 4.95 | 21 | 5.38 | 45 | 6.93 | 19 | 6.84 | 10 | 6.90 | 0 | 9 | 6.56 | |
| ILSFunctionality | 194 | 6.44 | 23 | 6.04 | 21 | 5.29 | 21 | 5.81 | 44 | 7.11 | 19 | 7.00 | 10 | 6.60 | 0 | 9 | 6.44 | |
| PrintFunctionality | 192 | 7.27 | 22 | 7.14 | 21 | 7.14 | 21 | 7.19 | 43 | 7.28 | 19 | 7.58 | 10 | 7.20 | 0 | 9 | 7.44 | |
| ElectronicFunctionality | 190 | 4.60 | 22 | 3.50 | 21 | 3.05 | 21 | 4.38 | 43 | 4.67 | 18 | 5.94 | 9 | 5.33 | 0 | 9 | 4.22 | |
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 189 | 6.10 | 23 | 5.65 | 20 | 5.10 | 21 | 6.14 | 41 | 5.66 | 19 | 7.16 | 10 | 6.60 | 0 | 9 | 6.22 | |
| CompanyLoyalty | 192 | 5.67 | 23 | 5.74 | 21 | 4.00 | 21 | 5.05 | 43 | 5.74 | 19 | 6.74 | 10 | 7.00 | 0 | 9 | 5.56 | |
Millennium
A decreasing number of libraries continue to use Millennium (full product report and narrative comments) with many shifting to Sierra and other products (see selection/deselection report). Of the libraries that continue to use Millennium, the proportion of academics are higher than publics compared to Sierra (see graph of Millennium sites by type).
The numbers of responses from libraries using Millennium have declined since 2011 when 455 responded, consistent with the gradual migration from this legacy product. Only 2 libraries using Millennium responded this year (2023=2; 2022=5; 2021=9; 2020=16; 2019=39; 2018=66; 2017=94; 2016=144; 2015=174; 2014=210; 2013=248; 2012=389; 2011=454). Over the editions of the survey, Millennium has shifted from Innovative's flagship ILS to a legacy product. Both libraries responding to the survey this year indicated interest in moving to a new system. The percentages of libraries indicating interest in moving to a new system has increased from 6.4% in 2007 before the announcement of Sierra to 100% this year.
Response data from previous years for Millennium shows steady ratings from 2007 through 2010, with declining satisfaction scores since. This year support scores improved, though company loyalty declined. (General satisfaction: 2007: 7.17, 2008: 7.08, 2009: 7.13, 2010: 7.11, 2011: 6.88, 2012: 6.68, 2013: 6.44, 2014: 6.12, 2015: 5.77, 2016: 5.14, 2017: 5.47, 2018: 5.23, 2019: 5.32; 2020: 4.69). Since 2020 the number of responses for Millennium have been too few to calculate satisfaction scores.
Perspective: All libraries still using Millennium have plans to change, whether stated so explicitely in this survey or not. Since Innovative introduced Sierra as the successor to Millennium over a decade ago, it is not surprising that its use is diminishing rapidly. Libraries using Millennium that planned to stay with Innovative and upgrade to Sierra would have likely done so long ago. Millennium is approaching the end of its product cycle and we can expect the number of remaining installations to drop rapidly. Libraries using Millennium are clearly ready to move to other alternatives.
Polaris
Polaris (full product report and narrative comments) has been implemented primarily by public libraries) within the United States and Canada, with 176 libraries responding to this year’s survey. Polaris continues to be well appreciated by large public libraries, receiving quite positive ratings for general satisfaction (7.16), overall functionality (7.26), print resource management (7.72), and customer support (6.95). though scores for Symphony were higher in each of these categories. Among responses from large public libraries Polaris received top scores in the categories of electronic resource management (6.89) and company loyalty (7.68). The overall level of scores in the category of electronic resource management was lower than others.
From 2007 through 2012 Polaris consistently was rated as one of the top performing systems, though in 2008 libraries gave somewhat lower ratings for support. From 2012 through 2019, ratings for Polaris declined in all categories. In 2019 and 2020, satisfaction scores improved in all categories, with company loyalty showing the most improvement. This year scores dropped in all categories, with customer loyalty showing the sharpest decline. Smaller public libraries show more satisfaction in almost all categories relative to large publics.
Under Clarivate Library Software Group, Polaris is positioned as the strategic offering for public libraries, especially for new customers. Sierra is also used by many public libraries and will continue to receive development and support. The newer Vega applications further strengthen Polaris, providing more sophisticated capabilities for discovery and other patron-facing services. Noting the declining satisfaction ratings seen in the last two years, it will be interesting to see if scores improve going forward as new support and development processes coalescing under the new organizational structure take hold.
| 2023 Polaris Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Polaris | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 134 | 7.36 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 63 | 7.65 | 28 | 7.43 | 12 | 6.83 | 1 | 14 | 6.21 | ||||
| ILSFunctionality | 133 | 7.44 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 62 | 7.63 | 28 | 7.57 | 12 | 6.75 | 1 | 14 | 6.93 | ||||
| PrintFunctionality | 133 | 7.84 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 63 | 8.03 | 28 | 7.89 | 11 | 7.55 | 1 | 14 | 7.07 | ||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 133 | 6.32 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 63 | 6.73 | 28 | 6.07 | 12 | 6.58 | 1 | 14 | 4.71 | ||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 130 | 6.89 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 62 | 7.16 | 28 | 7.04 | 12 | 6.75 | 0 | 14 | 5.43 | ||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 131 | 6.90 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 63 | 7.02 | 27 | 7.41 | 12 | 7.33 | 1 | 13 | 4.92 | ||||
Ex Libris
Ex Libris (view company profile) specializes in technologies for academic, research, and national libraries, offering a wide range of products and services, including its current Alma library services platform. The company continues to support its legacy Aleph and Voyager integrated library systems, though the number installations continues to diminish. This year 395 libraries using Alma, 17 using Aleph, and 13 using Voyager responded to the survey, for a total of 425 overall. Its products have been implemented by libraries in all geographic regions. Ex Libris was acquired by ProQuest in December 2015. ProQuest was acquired by Clarivate in January 2022. Ex Libris along with Innovative now comprise the Clarivate Library Software Group.
The libraries which have implemented Ex Libris products tend to be larger and more complex, and tend not to give superlative ratings. Ex Libris offers a variety of products not addressed by the survey, including its Leganto course list management application, Esploro for support of academic research programs, Rapido for the management of interlibrary loan transactions, and campusM as a mobile and web content management platform for academic institutions. The academic discovery section of this report covers Ex Libris Primo and Summon.
Alma
Alma (full product report and narrative comments), designed for academic, research, and national libraries (graph of Alma implementations by type) earned top rankings among academic libraries with collections over 1 million volumes for for general ILS satisfaction (6.84), overall ILS functionality (6.85), effectiveness of managing electronic resources (6.85), and company loyalty (6.65). Sierra was the only other system with enough responses to appear in this category and received higher scores for print resource management and customer support.
Mid-sized academic libraries gave Alma higher scores than large academic libraries in all categories.
Small academics also gave Alma higher scores across categories than larger academics. OPALS, an open source system used by school libraries, smaller academics, and special libraries was rated higher in some categories than Alma in the small academic library category. For these libraries, Alma fell below OPALS and WorldShare Management Services in the category of print resource management.
This year libraries using Alma gave higher ratings in all categories than those given last year.
Mid-sized academics rated Alma highest for overall ILS satisfaction (7.13), overall ILS functionality (7.26), functionality for electronic resource management (7.18), and company loyalty (7.02). OCLC WorldShare Management Services scored slightly higher for management of print resources (7.68 vs 7.44); SirsiDynix scored higher for product support (7.59 vs 7.24).
Perspective: As the dominant resource management product used by academic Libraries, the performance of Alma draws considerable interest. The rise of Alma among academic libraries has been reflected in this survey since its launch in 2012. The number of responses has increased across each edition of the survey through 2022 (2012=8; 2013=18; 2014=46; 2015=88; 2016=161; 2017=260; 2018=317; 2019=383; 220=322; 2021=376; 2022: 429). This year, the number of responses dropped to 394, consistent with the somewhat lower number of total survey responses received. Alma has been implemented by large academic libraries and is a complex product that addresses a wider range of functionality than integrated library systems. Although the satisfaction scores given to Alma are moderate, only a handful of libraries indicate interest in changing to another product. The GALILEO consortium of academic libraries in Georga has elected to move from Alma to FOLIO, which accounts for many of those indicating interest in migrationg from Alma. Of libraries considering migrating from legacy products, Alma continues to be listed as a migration candidate more than any other option (89), followed by FOLIO (79). Alma receives higher marks for its functionality for the management of electronic resources than for print. Since academic libraries generally spend most of their collection budgets on electronic resources, weaker capabilities for managing print does not seem to detract substantially from the overall satisfaction levels for Alma.
Alma is a sophisticated product used mostly in larger libraries with complex requirements. Smaller academic libraries, in contrast, often complain that Alma may be too complex, though this year they give higher satisfaction scores than larger academics.
| 2023 Alma Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alma | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 394 | 7.08 | 85 | 7.22 | 116 | 7.15 | 89 | 6.82 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 6.92 | ||||
| ILSFunctionality | 396 | 7.20 | 86 | 7.62 | 116 | 7.28 | 89 | 6.88 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 7.08 | ||||
| PrintFunctionality | 395 | 7.40 | 86 | 7.76 | 116 | 7.47 | 89 | 7.11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 7.27 | ||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 395 | 7.04 | 86 | 7.13 | 116 | 7.16 | 89 | 6.83 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 6.42 | ||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 394 | 6.19 | 85 | 6.61 | 116 | 6.48 | 89 | 5.48 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 6.42 | ||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 389 | 6.93 | 83 | 7.10 | 115 | 7.03 | 87 | 6.69 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 6.92 | ||||
Voyager
Voyager, (full product report and narrative comments), acquired by Ex Libris from Elsevier in Nov 2006, and developed specifically for academic libraries, (graph of Voyager implementations by type) though during a time when their collections included mostly print materials.
Its legacy in print can be seen in its ratings were its functionality for print received its highest scores (6.92) and functionality for electronic resources received the lowest (4.00).
Scores for support, loyalty, and company satisfaction steadily increased between 2014 and 2021; scores dropped from 2021-2022. Company loyalty improved this year, whicle support and company satisfaction remained steady. The number of responses from libraries using Voyager has declined to the point where the statistics have become less reliable indicators.
Most libraries currently using Voyager indicate interest in migrating to a new system (10 out of 15 or 66.7%). Of those considering migrating, more mentioned FOLIO among the candidate replacements (7); 6 mentioned Alma. Others mentioned included Koha (2), and TIND (1). The score for company loyalty has improved for the last two years; the rating for overall satisfaction dropped substantially last year and improved somewhat this year. Satisfaction with the company and for support rose from 2018 to 2019 and has remained fairly stedy the last three years.
Perspective: During the early years of this survey, Voyager was one of the leading products for academic libraries. The acquisition of Voyager by Ex Libris in 2007 was followed by sharply improved satisfaction scores for the next few years. With the introduction of Alma and WorldShare Management Services as library services platforms better suited for the needs of academic libraries, the number of installations of Voyager diminished. Between 2018 and 2021 there was a steady improvement in satisfaction for Voyager, especially for support,though this year support scores fell (2021=7.39; 2022=6.7) The declining number of installations, survey responses, and the high percentage of libraries stating interest in migrating all point toward Voyager approaching the end of its product cycle. Most, if not all, libraries using Voyager are making plans for their next system. Support for Voyager seems assured for as long as it continues to be used by high-profile libraries.
| 2023 Voyager Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Voyager | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 13 | 5.08 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| ILSFunctionality | 13 | 5.00 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| PrintFunctionality | 13 | 6.92 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 13 | 4.00 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 13 | 6.69 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 13 | 6.38 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
Aleph (full product report and narrative comments), an established ILS product created by Ex Libris primarily for academic libraries (graph of Aleph implementations by type) continues to be used in many libraries, though the numbers are diminishing, (see selection/deselection report) driven by Aleph’s orientation to print materials and the increasing dominance of electronic resources in academic libraries.
The number of responses from libraries using Aleph were low (17), consistent with its reduced implementations. Once one of the most widely implemented ILS products in academic libraries, many have now migrated to other products. Ratings this year are difficult to characterize. Company loyalty scores have rizen steadily since 2019; Ratings for support have been steady for the last threeyears. General satisfaction is up a bit this year, following a sharp drop last year.
Most (12 out of 17 or 70.1%) libraries using Aleph indicate interest in moving to a new system. Migration candidates mentioned included Alma (10), WorldShare Management Services (1), and FOLIO (5). These statistics point to a trend that a large portion of libraries now using Aleph will stay within the Ex Libris fold and eventually move to Alma, though many are also considering FOLIO.
Perspective: Aleph has been a mainstay for academic and national libraries as well as for large consortia in many global regions for more than three decades. But its architecture has become outdated and functional capabilities no longer align well with most libraries. This year, responders gave its print capabilities their highest ratings (7.12) and the lowest to its management of electronic resources (3.29). Like Voyager, support for Aleph is expected to continue for several years to give libraries pleny of time to move on to other systems. Once Aleph and Voyager fully wind down, Ex Libris will be able to fully focus all its support resources on Alma and its other new-generation products. Aleph is still used by many large libraries and consortia, so its eventual extinction still lies several years in the future.
| 2023 ALEPH 500 Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALEPH 500 | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 17 | 5.35 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| ILSFunctionality | 17 | 5.06 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| PrintFunctionality | 17 | 7.12 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 17 | 3.29 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 17 | 6.65 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 17 | 7.06 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
OCLC
OCLC, a non-profit membership organization (view company profile), offers many different products and services to libraries. OCLC has developed WorldShare Management Services and WorldCat discovery service and supports a variety of ILS products acquired from other companies. The organization also offers WorldCat Discovery Service, one of the products covered in the academic discovery services section below. OCLC launched Wise for public libraries in the United States in 2018. While OCLC Wise has been implemented by many libraries in The Netherlands and Belgium, only a few libraries in the US have implemented it. OCLC offers many other products and services not within the scope of the survey or this report.
WorldShare Management Services
A total of 133 libraries using WorldShare Management Services (full product report and narrative comments), from OCLC responded to this year’s survey. This product has been implemented primarily in academic libraries; (graph of WorldShare Management Services implementations by type) most responses to this year’s survey for WMS were from academic libraries (92), except for 3 special libraries, 1 school library, and 2 consortia.
WorldShare Management Services did not receive enough responses to appear in the large academic library tables. Among mid-sized academic libraries, WMS below Alma for all categories except for management of print resources and support. Among mid-sized academic libraries, WMS received top ratings for management of print resources (WMS = 7.68; Alma=7.44); Ratings for WMS were improved in all categories relative to last year's survey results except for company loyalty.
Perspective: OCLC WorldShare Management System falls into the library services platform category of products. These products share characteristics such as globally distributed multi-tenant platforms with a single underlying codebase and provide advanced functionality for managing both electronic and print resources. WorldShare Management Services was launched in 2011. Survey results for both WMS and Alma fall into the same general range of moderate scores (6.14 – 7.5), WMS received its highest scores in the category for print functionality; Alma ranks somewhat higher than WMS in the other categories and for each size group of academic libraries. Despite many similarities, Alma has gained a larger market share than WMS. The library services platform category includes limited options: OCLC WorldShare Management Services, Ex Libris Alma, and FOLIO. Until recently WorldShare Management services was positioned as the key competitor to Alma. Now that FOLIO has entered its production phase, more academic libraries are expressing interest in it as they mention migration candidates in their survey responses. For libraries considering new systems, WMS was listed as a candidate less often (34) than Alma (89) or FOLIO (79).
| 2023 WorldShare Management Services Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WorldShare Management Services | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 122 | 7.07 | 47 | 7.15 | 33 | 7.18 | 8 | 6.75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| ILSFunctionality | 120 | 6.97 | 46 | 7.28 | 32 | 7.06 | 8 | 5.75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| PrintFunctionality | 120 | 7.47 | 47 | 7.79 | 31 | 7.68 | 8 | 6.75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 121 | 6.85 | 47 | 6.94 | 32 | 7.19 | 8 | 6.13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 120 | 7.22 | 47 | 7.40 | 31 | 7.26 | 8 | 6.63 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 120 | 6.83 | 47 | 7.00 | 32 | 7.00 | 8 | 6.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||||
OCLC Wise
OCLC Wise, a product designed for public libraries, received 6 recponses this year, below the threshold for inclusion in the comparative statistical tables. The scores given were exceptionally low and the narrative comments were generally negative. The lowest scores were given for company loyalty (3.50) and the highest were for print resource management (5.50).
Some of the comments given include:
We decided in Fall 2022 to begin the process of moving away from OCLC Wise. OCLC has failed to make strides in making significant improvements to Wise's core functionality since we went live in March 2021; updates tend to address more surface-level or aesthetic issues rather than essential needs. Our sense was and continues to be that OCLC did not understand the peculiarities of the system it purchased and, having failed to make it a functional ILS for a modern American library through quick fixes, is now attempting to rebuild Wise from the ground up. Unfortunately, the company does not seem to have a development team that's knowledgeable of basic ILS operations -- they're good people, but they don't know enough about how an ILS works to understand why Wise is so lousy. After seeing all of Wise's early adopters give up on the system in 2022 and early 2023, we knew that we needed to get out of Wise and into a tried-and-true ILS that actually worked. We did not want to be the last rat on the sinking ship. We put out an RFP in Spring 2023 and eventually selected ByWater Koha and Aspen Discovery for our new solution. ByWater successfully migrated Chesapeake from Wise to Koha in summer / fall 2023 -- this was a big selling point for us. (Clarivate / III migrated Allen County to Polaris, too, but we got the sense from our finalist interviews that ByWater was more willing to figure out a lot of the unknowns of migrating away from Wise themselves, whereas the Polaris team expected us to spend additional money on third-party consultants.)
As an early adopter, we expected some bumps in the road. However, the vendor's capacity to develop the product has proven inadequate, and key features such as search functionality continue to be problematic. Overall, the vendor's employees have been good to work with, but progress is exceptionally slow and the product does not meet expectations as marketed.
| 2023 OCLC Wise Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OCLC Wise | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 6 | 4.50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| ILSFunctionality | 6 | 4.67 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| PrintFunctionality | 6 | 5.50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 6 | 4.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 6 | 5.17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 6 | 3.50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
SirsiDynix
SirsiDynix (view company profile), provides its Symphony, Horizon, and EOS.Web integrated library systems and is developing a set of web-based complementary products delivered through its new BLUEcloud platform. The company saw a new ownership arrangement in December 2014 through its acquisition by ICV Partners from Vista Equity Partners.
This year 243 libraries using Symphony responded to the survey (2022: 303; 2021: 332; 2020: 321; 2019: 439; 2018: 473, 2017: 531, 2016: 436, 2015: 436, 2014: 354, 2013: 315, 2012: 380, 2011: 326, 2010: 271, 2009: 304, 2008: 233, 2007: 284). Another 47 libraries using Horizon and 8 using EOS.Web completed responses, for a total of 298 SirsiDynix libraries represented in the survey
Following the acquisition of SirsiDynix by Vista Equity Partners in 2006, ratings for both Symphony and Horizon dropped for all categories in 2008 steadily improved through 2020. Satisfaction scores went down a bit from 2020-2022 but are slightly higher this year. Ratings for EOS.Web have seen declined from 2017 through 2019, but have substantially improved over the last four years.
Symphony
SirsiDynix Symphony (full product report and narrative comments), finds use all types and sizes of libraries and in many throughout international regions.
Most of the responses for Symphony came from public libraries (153 out of 243); 43 were from academic libraries.
Mid-sized academics libraries rated Symphony highest in satisfaction for customer support (7.59), and for print functionality (7.67). Not enough responses were received from large academic libraries using Symphony for it to appear in the ratings tables.
Symphony performed among large public libraries. It received highest ratings in the categories of overall ILS satisfaction (7.45), overall ILS functionality (7.3), print resource management (7.77), and customer support (8.05).
Mid-sized public libraries did not rate Symphony quite as well. Its highest ranking was for customer support (2nd / 7.41) and its lowest was for print resource management (7th / 7.02).
16 percent of libraries (40 out of 251 responses) indicated consideration of migrating from Symphony. Of those registering interest in changing, 22 were academic libraries. Candidate systems mentioned included Koha (11), Polaris (9), Alma (7), WMS (7), FOLIO (7), Evergreen (7). 3 mentioned remaining with Symphony among the considerations.
Ratings for SirsiDynix Symphony steadily improved from 2008 through 2020, with scores dropping somewhat in 2021 and 2022 and then improving a bit this year.
Many of the narrative comments given by libraries using Symphony and Horizon criticized SirsiDynix for not have yet completed development of the BLUEcloud modules. Unfulfilled expectations with the development of BLUEcloud stand out as an issue that may have impeded even higher satisfaction scores for Symphony.
Our consortium was a Dynix customer since the late 80s and migrated from Classic Dynix to Horizon in 2005 with the anticipation of migrating to Horizon 8. Then Sirsi bought Dynix, and they've taken a well-run company to the point of stagnation. Gone were any innovative releases. We never saw a next-gen platform develop. We've been waiting over a decade for the BlueCloud browser-based modules to be developed, and they still haven't nailed down a fully functioning first module. They purchased other good products, such as Docutek eRes, and drove it into the ground. I'm tired of the excuses and waiting for any innovation from this company. Our 30+ year old product isn't good enough for 2023, so I'm happily migrating to a platform developed in the current century.
I'll be much more satisfied when SirsiDynix finally has BlueCloud Circulation and Cataloging developed to a point where we can use it and move beyond using Symphony. My library is still waiting on a few key features that are promised for 2024. Symphony has limitations when it comes to our interlibrary loan system in Michigan, [...] that needs work. We stay with SirsiDynix because they have excellent customer service and they address our problems quickly when we have them.
Sirsi is far too slow in progressing with BlueCloud. Overall, it's underlying technology is old. It jerry rigs solutions rather than changing out the old technology.
Our library is tired of the promises from SirsiDynix that never materialize. For instance, BLUEcloud Analytics is no easier to use from when it launched but we were told years ago that making it more user-friendly was a priority. There is so much vaporware with this company now.
SirsiDynix dropped the ball with their mobile app and its third party partner, and this has caused negativity in our library. Additionally it is several years since we migrated on an understanding of a web-based modern staff interface being imminent. The development is just SO SLOW. BlueCloud Circ isn't usable for us yet. BlueCloud Cataloguing isn't usable for us yet. Serials isn't thought of yet. And UK interlibrary loans? Probably never going to make it into the product. I wish the company would stop reinventing new things before it gets its house in order with the things we are already paying for.
| 2023 Symphony Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Symphony | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 243 | 6.76 | 19 | 6.21 | 14 | 6.07 | 4 | 91 | 6.77 | 38 | 6.95 | 10 | 7.00 | 1 | 21 | 6.71 | ||
| ILSFunctionality | 241 | 6.87 | 19 | 6.37 | 14 | 6.00 | 4 | 91 | 6.93 | 38 | 6.84 | 9 | 7.11 | 1 | 21 | 7.14 | ||
| PrintFunctionality | 240 | 7.36 | 19 | 7.16 | 14 | 7.00 | 4 | 91 | 7.40 | 38 | 7.18 | 10 | 7.60 | 1 | 20 | 7.90 | ||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 238 | 5.85 | 19 | 5.00 | 13 | 6.23 | 4 | 88 | 5.80 | 38 | 6.13 | 10 | 5.60 | 1 | 21 | 6.19 | ||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 243 | 7.42 | 19 | 6.89 | 14 | 7.36 | 4 | 91 | 7.16 | 38 | 7.61 | 10 | 7.60 | 1 | 21 | 8.29 | ||
| CompanyLoyalty | 238 | 6.69 | 18 | 5.89 | 14 | 6.36 | 4 | 90 | 6.64 | 37 | 6.81 | 10 | 7.00 | 1 | 19 | 7.00 | ||
Horizon
The number of responses from libraries using Horizon (full product report and narrative comments), has diminished over the span of the survey (2007: 274; 2022: 52; 2023: 47), reflecting its decrease in installations. In 2008 61.5 percent of libraries using Horizon indicated they were shopping for a new system. This year responses from libraries using Horizon show a relatively low level of interest in changing systems (13 out of 48 or 27.1%), apparently accepting the messaging from SirsiDynix that it will continue to be supported in the long term.
Horizon, implemented in many types of libraries, (see selection/deselection report). Of those libraries indicating interest in moving away from Horizon, candidate systems included Polaris (7), Alma (2), Koha (1). None of the libraries using Horizon that were considering changing systems mentioned Symphony as a replacement candidate.
| 2023 Horizon Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Horizon | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 47 | 6.34 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 13 | 6.46 | 20 | 6.50 | 5 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| ILSFunctionality | 47 | 6.36 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 13 | 6.85 | 20 | 6.50 | 5 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| PrintFunctionality | 45 | 7.31 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 12 | 7.08 | 20 | 7.45 | 5 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 45 | 4.91 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 12 | 5.08 | 20 | 5.05 | 5 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 47 | 7.51 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 13 | 7.38 | 20 | 7.35 | 5 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 46 | 6.46 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 13 | 5.77 | 19 | 6.89 | 5 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
EOS.Web
EOS.Web (full product report and narrative comments), acquired by SirsiDynix in November 2013, received 8 responses in this year's survey. The product is used mostly by special libraries and does not appear in the statistical summary tables in this report. The responses from libraries using EOS.Web have been erratic across the annual editions of the survey. Satisfaction scores in all categories were sharply down over those seen in 2017 to 2019, but improved the last four years.
| 2023 EOS.Web Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EOS.Web | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 8 | 8.25 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| ILSFunctionality | 8 | 8.00 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| PrintFunctionality | 8 | 8.63 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 8 | 7.25 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 8 | 8.38 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 8 | 8.38 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
The Library Corporation
The Library Corporation (view company profile) working primarily with public and school libraries, offers the Library.Solution and CARL.X integrated library systems. This year there were 48 responses from libraries using Library.Solution and 22 for libraries using Carl.X. The Library Corporation has been owned and operated by its founder since 1974.
Library.Solution
Library.Solution (full product report and narrative comments), has been implemented primarily in small to mid-sized public libraries and K-12 school districts.
Libraries gave Library.Solution its highest scores in the categories of print functionality and for customer support. The lowest scores were given for company loyalty. Across all years of the survey, scores for Library.Solution have been fairly even. This year saw a significant improvement in all categories, following a slight downturn last year. 6 out of the 52 respnoses (11.5%) indicated interest in migrating to a new product.
Library.Solution has seen generally lowering ratings between 2012 and 2022, with some peaks and valleys along the way, though this year's ratings were the highest ever given for the product.
Perspective: Throughout the editions of this survey, libraries have given Library.Solution moderately positive ratings, consistently within the range of 6.5 through 7.7. These scores are not always high enough to place in the top place above competing systems. Survey ratings give the company’s customer support excellent scores, as do many of the narrative comments.
| 2023 Library.Solution Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Library.Solution | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 48 | 7.23 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 32 | 7.50 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||||
| ILSFunctionality | 48 | 7.25 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 32 | 7.44 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||||
| PrintFunctionality | 48 | 7.65 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 32 | 7.66 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 46 | 5.85 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 31 | 5.84 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 48 | 7.77 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 32 | 7.94 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 47 | 7.11 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 32 | 7.53 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | |||||||
Carl.Solution (full product report and narrative comments), is used primarily by large municipal libraries and consortia. With only 22 responses this year, Carl.X does not appear in the statistical tables. Ratings given for Carl.X improved from 2018 through 2020, but were lower for the last three years. Libraries using Carl.X gave The Library Corporation thier highest scores for print functionality (7.18) and lowest for support for electronic resources (5.3).
| 2023 Carl.X Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carl.X | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 22 | 6.64 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 6.00 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| ILSFunctionality | 22 | 6.36 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 6.10 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| PrintFunctionality | 22 | 7.18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 6.80 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 20 | 5.30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 4.30 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 22 | 6.91 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 5.90 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 21 | 6.43 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 5.30 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Biblionix
Biblionix (view company profile) is a small family-owned and managed business based in Austin, TX that focuses entirely on small and mid-sized public libraries and has developed Apollo an entirely web-based ILS deployed through a multi-tenant platform. This year 64 libraries using Apollo responded to the survey, all from public libraries.
Apollo
Apollo (full product report and narrative comments), is a Web-based integrated library system implemented only by public libraries with small or mid-sized collections.
Apollo was the top performer among very small public libraries, those with collections with less than 30,000 items, in all categories: general satisfaction (8.53), overall ILS functionality (8.53), print resource management (8.17), electronic resource management (8.28), customer support (8.72), and company loyalty (8.33).
In the small public library category (collections items between 30,000 and 100,000 items), Apollo received top rankings in satisfaction for customer support (8.23) and company loyalty (7.86) and was ranked second in most other categories.
This product has seen consistently positive rankings for all the years it has appeared in the survey. The ratings given this year were still quite positive, though they were lower in all categories compared to those given last year. The narrative comments for Apollo were consistently positive, for example:We continue to be extremely happy with Bibilionx/Apollo. We especially like how the product is geared toward libraries our size. Their Team is always responsive whenever we have issues and continues to roll our small improvements. System - both back end staff, public facing staff, and for the public - is very straightforward and easy to use: flexibility in checkout features, cataloging is simplified.
Perspective: By focusing on the niche of small public libraries, Biblionix has been able to garner very high levels of satisfaction from the libraries using Apollo. These libraries may find systems developed for larger libraries overly complex and appreciate Apollo’s web-based streamlined functionality. Apollo did not appear in survey results for mid-sized or large public libraries.
| 2023 Apollo Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apollo | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 64 | 8.11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 58 | 8.17 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| ILSFunctionality | 64 | 8.06 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 58 | 8.12 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| PrintFunctionality | 64 | 8.08 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 58 | 8.12 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 62 | 7.65 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 57 | 7.70 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 63 | 8.27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 57 | 8.42 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 64 | 8.08 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 58 | 8.12 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
Book Systems, Inc.
Book Systems (view company profile) develops software used primarily in schools and small public libraries, primarily in the United States.
Atriuum
This year 64 libraries using Atriuum (full product report and narrative comments), from Book Systems responded to the survey; All responses except for 4 were from public libraries. Although Atriuum has been adopted in many K-12 schools, these libraries tend to be less likely to respond to the survey. The company earned its strongest ratings in overall ILS satisfaction (7.75) and customer support (7.98); Since 2011 its scores have placed consistently in the 7.5 to 8.3 range in all categories, reflecting extremely high levels of satisfaction. There has been minor variation from year to year, with a general trend toward higher scores through 2020, with somewhat lower scores between 2020 and 2022. Ratings this year improved for customer support and satisfaction with the company, though they went down a bit for general satisfaction and company loyalty.
| 2023 Atriuum Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atriuum | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 64 | 7.75 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 54 | 7.91 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||||
| ILSFunctionality | 64 | 7.67 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 54 | 7.70 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||||
| PrintFunctionality | 63 | 7.97 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 53 | 8.00 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 61 | 6.70 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 52 | 6.92 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 62 | 7.98 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 53 | 8.11 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 64 | 7.55 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 54 | 7.56 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | |||||||
Civica
Civica operates primarily outside of the United States, with a strong presence in the United Kingdom, Asia, and Australia, and serves mostly public and school libraries.
Spydus
This year 28 libraries using Spydus (full product report and narrative comments), from Civica responded to the survey, with most coming from small and mid-sized public libraries and outside the United States. Of the 28 libraries responding, 2 (7.1%) indicated interest in migrating to a new system. Since 2011 ratings for Spydus have been mostly consistent and generally positive in all categories. Ratings have declined somewhat since 2016, but improved between 2020 and 2021, and dropped in 2022. This year saw improved scores in all categories except for company loyalty. Libraries using Spydus gave Civica lower ratings for support than for other categories.
Perspective: Although Spydus is one of the most used systems in Australia and other countries, it has only a handful of implementations in the United States and is underrepresented in this survey. Despite efforts to solicit responses from libraries in all international regions, results are skewed toward the United States and Canada, which means the survey results for products like Spydus may not be indicative of their broader customer base.
| 2023 Spydus Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spydus | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 28 | 7.18 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 7.00 | 8 | 7.50 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| ILSFunctionality | 28 | 7.21 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 7.29 | 8 | 7.38 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| PrintFunctionality | 27 | 7.85 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 7.93 | 8 | 8.00 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 28 | 6.39 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 6.36 | 8 | 6.75 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 28 | 6.14 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 6.71 | 8 | 6.00 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 27 | 6.63 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 6.93 | 7 | 6.43 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
Follett School Solutions
Follett ranks as the leading provider of technology products for school libraries, with over 80 percent of the public school libraries in the United States using its Destiny products (chart of implementations by library type). OPALS holds a much smaller portion of the market share in the school library sector compared to Destiny, though libraries running OPALS respond enthusiastically to this survey.
In September 2021, Follett School Solutions was divested from Follett Corporantion and acquired by Francisco Parnters.
Destiny
Follett has developed its Destiny ILS primarily for the PreK-12 school library sector, though it is also used in small public libraries. This year only 40 libraries using Destiny responded to the survey, with 20 from schools, 14 from small public libraries, and 1 from a small academic library. (full product report and narrative comments).
In all categories, school libraries rated Destiny higher than did public or academic libraries. That is an expected outcome since Destiny has been designed for K-12 schools and its use in public libraries is more incidental, due mostly to its low cost per library. Some public libraries also share an ILS implementation with thier school district.
The general ILS satisfaction rating for school libraries was 7.95 and 7.31 for public libraries. Destiny was given its highest ratings for management of print resources (8.15) and for customer support (7.83). Responses for Destiny have been gradually rising between 2014 and 2021 but dropped in 2022. This year scores improved for support, company satisfaction, and for general satisfaction, but fell a bit for company loyalty.
Perspective: The response rates from school libraries have been disproportionately low for the survey. School librarians face many challenges and have proven to be difficult to reach. In some years, Follett has helped promote the survey to its users, such as in 2016 when 621 responses were received for libraries using Destiny. The satisfaction scores for that year with a large number of responses were consistent with subsequent years with smaller response rates. This observation helps strengthen confidence that survey ratings are representative of the broader customer base even with a smaller sample. The drop in satisfaction scores in 2022 may reflect some uncertainty about Follett no longer being part of the lonstanding Follett Corporation but now a portfolio company of Francisco Partners.
| 2023 Destiny Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Destiny | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 40 | 7.47 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 7.31 | 1 | 0 | 20 | 7.95 | 0 | ||||||
| ILSFunctionality | 40 | 7.20 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 6.69 | 1 | 0 | 20 | 7.90 | 0 | ||||||
| PrintFunctionality | 40 | 8.15 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 8.31 | 1 | 0 | 20 | 8.35 | 0 | ||||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 38 | 5.79 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 4.23 | 1 | 0 | 18 | 7.44 | 0 | ||||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 40 | 7.83 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 7.85 | 1 | 0 | 20 | 8.35 | 0 | ||||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 40 | 6.97 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 6.92 | 1 | 0 | 20 | 7.50 | 0 | ||||||
OPALS
The open source OPALS ILS (full product report and narrative comments) implemented primarily in school libraries (chart of implementations by library type), received its usual enthusiastic response, with 274 libraries using OPALS completing the survey. OPALS was developed and supported by Media Flex, Inc. (view company profile). Many libraries using OPALS receive support services from their district rather than from Media Flex directly. In the state of New York, many of the BOCES provide OPALS for the school libraries they support. This year, 177 responses for OPALS came from school libraries, 12 from consortia, 11 from small public libraries, and 23 from small academic libraries.
OPALS received top ratings in all categories by libraries serving PreK-12 Schools: Overall satisfaction (8.90), ILS functionality (8.72), print functionality (8.94), customer support (8.88), electronic resource functionality (8.16), and company loyalty (8.88). OPALS also received top ratings in all categories for small academic libraries, though the number of responses was smaller than those from other products. Looking at responses across all library groups, OPALS received somewhat weaker scores for its capabilities for managing electronic resources (7.96). 48 responses did not provide a response for this question, indicating that these libraries do not use OPALS for managing thier electronic resources.
Perspective: Libraries using OPALS are enthusiastic responders to this survey, both in terms of the number of responses and in the stellar satisfaction scores given. Libraries using OPALS seem truly delighted with the product and with the support they receive. It is difficult to interpret results that give highest scores to every survey question without differentiation. The only question that OPALS responders treated differently was the one addressing capabilities for addressing electronic resources.
| 2023 OPALS Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OPALS | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 273 | 8.83 | 16 | 8.44 | 3 | 0 | 10 | 8.90 | 0 | 0 | 173 | 8.90 | 12 | 8.42 | ||||
| ILSFunctionality | 274 | 8.64 | 16 | 8.13 | 3 | 0 | 10 | 8.90 | 0 | 0 | 174 | 8.72 | 12 | 8.08 | ||||
| PrintFunctionality | 274 | 8.90 | 16 | 8.63 | 3 | 0 | 10 | 9.00 | 0 | 0 | 174 | 8.94 | 12 | 8.67 | ||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 226 | 7.96 | 16 | 7.06 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 8.00 | 0 | 0 | 152 | 8.16 | 11 | 7.64 | ||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 271 | 8.86 | 16 | 8.56 | 3 | 0 | 10 | 8.90 | 0 | 0 | 172 | 8.88 | 12 | 8.58 | ||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 269 | 8.82 | 16 | 8.44 | 3 | 0 | 10 | 8.80 | 0 | 0 | 171 | 8.88 | 12 | 8.58 | ||||
Open Source Products
Open Source products make up a routine aspect of the library technology industry. Although this report gathers them together into a separate section, open source products compete on their own merits among the proprietary offerings. The products covered include Koha, used by all types of libraries and in all global regions, Evergreen, used by consortia of public libraries in the United States and Canada, and FOLIO, a library services platform developed primarily for academic libraries that is now in its early implementation phase.
Most implementations of open source library management products rely on commercial support arrangements. The satisfaction that a library might experience will be determined both by the capabilities of the software and by the service provider. The survey measures the satisfaction across all implementations of an open source product and for each service provider, for example: Koha – ByWater Solutions or FOLIO – EBSCO Information Services.
Spanning responses across all open source products, many libraries offer comments of considerable satisfaction.
Koha
| Support provider | Responses | General Satisfaction |
|---|---|---|
| All Installations | 217 | 7.75 |
| ByWater Solutions | 155 | 7.70 |
| Independent | 23 | 8.00 |
| Equinox | 4 | -- |
| Catalyst | 6 | 8.67 |
Koha (full product report and narrative comments), an open source integrated library system has been implemented by libraries of all types and in all parts of the world.
As an open source ILS, Koha can be downloaded and installed by libraries on their own, though many contract for installation, support, or hosting from commercial or non-profit support organizations. Those implementing Koha on their own are designated "Koha -- Independent" and others are qualified by the name of the support firm. The following table summarizes the number of libraries using Koha, their support arrangement, the number responses, and the general product support rating. Those with fewer than 6 responses fall below the threshold of performing the statistical calculations. This year 217 libraries using Koha responded to the survey.
When aggregating response scores across all support arrangements, ratings given to Koha have been generally rising since 2011. Scores across all Koha implementations were lower 2008 and 2009 than previous or subsequent years, due primarily to the low ratings from libraries using LibLime Koha, which had a strong presence in the US at that time. Since 2010 satisfaction scores given for all support arrangements for the community-supported Koha have steadily increased. Responses this year continued this trend of improved satisfaction.
| 2023 Koha Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Koha | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 211 | 7.75 | 34 | 7.12 | 7 | 8.14 | 1 | 75 | 7.87 | 21 | 7.90 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 8.00 | |||
| ILSFunctionality | 209 | 7.60 | 34 | 6.82 | 7 | 7.57 | 1 | 74 | 7.80 | 21 | 7.76 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 7.83 | |||
| PrintFunctionality | 208 | 7.89 | 33 | 7.48 | 7 | 8.14 | 1 | 74 | 7.74 | 21 | 8.00 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 8.50 | |||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 198 | 6.33 | 32 | 5.16 | 7 | 5.29 | 1 | 73 | 6.59 | 19 | 7.11 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 7.33 | |||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 205 | 7.86 | 33 | 7.33 | 6 | 7.83 | 1 | 74 | 8.15 | 21 | 7.52 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 8.33 | |||
| CompanyLoyalty | 203 | 7.90 | 33 | 7.36 | 7 | 6.43 | 1 | 73 | 7.96 | 21 | 8.10 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 8.67 | |||
Koha -- ByWater Solutions
Koha supported by ByWater Solutions (full product report and narrative comments), (view company profile) offers support services for Koha, with most of its client libraries located in the United States. ByWater serves many different types of libraries (see charts for library type and library size). This year’s breakdown of the 155 responses included 96 public libraries, 24 academics, 6 consortia, 6 special libraries, and 3 schools.
ByWater Solutions receives quite positive satisfaction scores despite its challenges of supporting a rapidly growing customer base of diverse types of libraries. Its clients increasingly include larger institutions which tend to be less likely to give highly positive ratings.
ByWater Solutions earned highest scores among mid-sized public libraries in all categories: general satisfaction (8.08), overall ILS functionality (7.92), print resource management (8.16), electronic resource management (7.25), customer support (7.84), and company loyalty (8.24).
Koha with support from ByWater Solutions did not appear in the tables for large public libraries.
Very small public libraries using Koha with support from ByWater Solutions gave second-highest ratings in most categories, with only Apollo, specifically developed for this category of libraries, receiving higher scores.
ByWater Solutions also received strong ratings among small public libraries and small academic libraries.When comparing rankings across the multiple years of the survey, ByWater saw diminishing satisfaction from 2010 through 2014, with a gradual improvement since. Scores this year were a bit lower than those given last year. Libraries contracting with ByWater Solutions gave higher ratings for support than other categories. The narrative comments given were overwhelmingly positive.
| 2023 Koha -- ByWater Solutions Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 155 | 7.70 | 20 | 6.95 | 3 | 0 | 71 | 7.85 | 20 | 7.90 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 8.00 | ||||
| ILSFunctionality | 154 | 7.64 | 20 | 6.90 | 3 | 0 | 70 | 7.77 | 20 | 7.75 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 7.83 | ||||
| PrintFunctionality | 152 | 7.81 | 19 | 7.32 | 3 | 0 | 70 | 7.69 | 20 | 8.00 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 8.50 | ||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 145 | 6.48 | 19 | 4.74 | 3 | 0 | 69 | 6.68 | 19 | 7.11 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 7.33 | ||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 154 | 7.89 | 20 | 7.55 | 3 | 0 | 70 | 8.10 | 20 | 7.50 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 8.33 | ||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 151 | 8.01 | 20 | 7.80 | 3 | 0 | 69 | 7.94 | 20 | 8.05 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 8.67 | ||||
Evergreen
Evergreen, (full product report and narrative comments). an open source ILS implemented primarily in consortia of public libraries received 81 survey responses this year. Of these responses, 66 were from public libraries, 6 from academics, and 6 from consortia. (see charts for library type and library size).
The satisfaction ratings given from libraries using Evergreen have steadily improved since 2012, though there have been some dips along the way. This year's ratings were a bit down compared to last year. These libraries give higher scores for support than other categories (8.00). Satisfaction with Evergreen's capabilities for managing electronic resources was the lowest (5.77)
Libraries using Evergreen rely an a variety of support arrangements. This year, 44 responses were from libraries working with Equinox Software for hosting and support services, 16 were from self-supported consortia, and 14 from consortia contracting with MOBIUS for hosting and support. Libraries associated with consortia that use Evergreen independently gave higher ratings than those working with a service provider. This difference may be partially associated with the goodwill toward thier own implementation and support efforts.
| 2023 Evergreen Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evergreen | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 80 | 7.65 | 6 | 7.50 | 0 | 0 | 53 | 7.77 | 11 | 7.64 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 7.83 | ||||
| ILSFunctionality | 78 | 7.64 | 6 | 7.67 | 0 | 0 | 52 | 7.73 | 10 | 7.40 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 8.00 | ||||
| PrintFunctionality | 80 | 7.84 | 6 | 8.17 | 0 | 0 | 53 | 7.74 | 11 | 8.18 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 8.50 | ||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 79 | 5.77 | 6 | 6.00 | 0 | 0 | 53 | 6.06 | 11 | 5.18 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 4.83 | ||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 76 | 8.00 | 5 | 8.40 | 0 | 0 | 51 | 7.96 | 11 | 8.64 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 8.60 | ||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 73 | 7.96 | 4 | 8.50 | 0 | 0 | 49 | 7.98 | 11 | 8.36 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 8.20 | ||||
Evergreen -- Equinox
Evergreen supported by Equinox Open Software Initiative (full product report and narrative comments), (view company profile) offers support services for Evergreen, Koha, and other open source products.
The satisfaction scores for Evergreen as supported by Equinox Open Software Initiative have been erratic for the last few years. Following last year's dramatically lower scores, results this year were improved, recovering to those seen in 2020. The lowest scores were given for electronic resource management. Two out of 41 responses (4.88%) indicated interest in changing systems or support providers.
| 2023 Evergreen -- Equinox Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evergreen -- Equinox | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 45 | 7.64 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 7.70 | 7 | 7.57 | 0 | 0 | 3 | ||||||
| ILSFunctionality | 44 | 7.59 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 7.62 | 7 | 7.29 | 0 | 0 | 3 | ||||||
| PrintFunctionality | 45 | 7.64 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 7.47 | 7 | 8.00 | 0 | 0 | 3 | ||||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 44 | 5.73 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 6.20 | 7 | 5.00 | 0 | 0 | 3 | ||||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 45 | 8.07 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 7.90 | 7 | 8.57 | 0 | 0 | 3 | ||||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 44 | 7.98 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 7.83 | 7 | 8.29 | 0 | 0 | 3 | ||||||
FOLIO
FOLIO is an open source initiative to create a new library services platform with financial backing from EBSCO Information Systems (vendor profile) with initial development contracted to Index Data. See FOLIO: Momentum building with new wave of implementations published in Library Technology Newsletter for further information on FOLIO.
FOLIO, following a four-year phase of development, saw production implementations beginning in 2019, with additional libraries moving into production since that time. This year 38 responses came from libraries using FOLIO, including 30 using EBSCO FOLIO supported by EBSCO Information Services, 4 using FOLIO with support from Index Data, and 1 using FOLIO supported by SCANBIT technology.
FOLIO was mentioned in many narrative comments, both from libraries already using it from those considering it. Selected comments include:
Under consideration: Alma (Exlibris) - seems most suitable system, but still too expansive. Folio - more accessible, but transition could be much more complicated as our organization is part of consortium. And Folio is pure cataloguing functionality - both for bibliographic and authority metadata.
Now that the Library of Congress has decided on FOLIO we expect the development work to increase and therefore make the product more viable
Open source software like Folio is intriguing but we don't have enough staff to maintain it without paying a vendor for support.
We looked at FOLIO during the RFP process for the [...]. In general, the [...] is committed an open source future, however FOLIO is not that solution, in our opinion. There are glaring problems with functionality, support, and governance, as of mid-2023.
Contract is not up until 2030 but keeping an eye on FOLIO for sure; may do an RFI in 2025
Folio could be of interest once it is ripe.
Folio is very young system and it needs a lot of development, which is happening. We think it has a lot of potential to become a very good system in the near future.
We are strongly committed to using open source solutions wherever possible. We believe that FOLIO provides the best available technology platform for our future initiatives.
Folio ILS under EBSCO support/hosting is a very stable system with many features and integrations with other 3rd party applications. Also, we hope many Libraries will be considering migrating to Folio and this will change the landscape of the ILS industry, esp. working with MARC to BIBFRAME formats and vice versa.
FOLIO has got some additional features the past year which makes us more satisfied with the product. It's now also taking a step back to improve underlying technical structure, which I think is good for the future.
We are already on an open source ILS & are interested in expanding our use of open source library systems if possible. It's sometimes difficult to parse out what shortcomings are FOLIO and which are EBSCO's hosting of it. Certainly there are aspects of FOLIO that are in desperate need of more development (course reserves comes to mind, as does batch work on metadata), but EBSCO makes enough and large enough mistakes in hosting and service (particularly around upgrades) that they must be considered separately. Also a disappointment -- EBSCO is very restrictive of the independently developed modules they will include in their FOLIO installations, which negates some of the benefit of an open source system.
We like that Folio, being an Open Source solution, is backed by a vendor who assists customers with the product. If this weren't the case, we probably wouldn't go with an open-source product. Mostly because we don't have the staff to support it.
The library is interested in FOLIO but the University's IT section does not want an open-source system for a critical system
We are curious to see how FOLIO grows with the Library of Congress as its newest client.
We're interested in seeing what Folio has to offer. Local academic libraries in our area are already on the system, so we'd like to take a closer look at it. In the meantime, our ILS is meeting our needs.
We love OCLC WorldShare Management Services but the price is becoming untenable. We are exploring FOLIO as a replacement. While it doesn't have an ILL system we think we could keep Tipasa and still be better off in the long run. We haven't made any decisions, though.
With Clarivate's acquisition of ProQuest/Ex Libris/III/RefWorks/EndNote/etc., we are very concerned about the viability, pricing, data and customer privacy, and customer service of their products. Unfortunately, we are unable to reliably deploy FOLIO except via a third-party cloud host, which seems antithetical to our goals and concerns. We will also still be anchored to OCLC for EZProxy, because OpenAthens appears to be a patron data-grab that suffers from frequent reliability issues. Finally, FOLIO's discovery layer is extremely problematic, and their creation of a legacy catalog is a huge red flag.
IF we were to implement FOLIO, it would be via EBSCO.
| 2023 FOLIO Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FOLIO | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 37 | 7.05 | 11 | 6.91 | 12 | 7.58 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||||||
| ILSFunctionality | 37 | 6.57 | 11 | 6.82 | 12 | 7.08 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||||||
| PrintFunctionality | 37 | 7.35 | 11 | 7.18 | 12 | 7.92 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||||||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 36 | 6.89 | 11 | 6.73 | 12 | 7.33 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||||||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 38 | 6.97 | 11 | 7.18 | 11 | 7.55 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||||||
| CompanyLoyalty | 38 | 6.97 | 10 | 7.20 | 12 | 7.25 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||||||
Academic Discovery
This year’s survey included a section on academic discovery services. This portion of the survey probes issues related to index-based discovery services, including Primo and Summon from Ex Libris, EBSCO Discovery Service, and WorldCat Discovery Service from OCLC. Each of these products is based on a large-scale index that addresses the general body of scholarly literature, including individual articles, book chapters, and other items.
Many libraries use a different discovery interface than the one provided through the index-based product. The survey questions were concern primarily with the central index and associated search and retrieval technologies. All three major discovery services offers an API that enables their use through third-party interfaces. It’s common, for example, to implement VuFind or Blacklight as the patron interface and Primo or EBSCO Discovery Service to support article-level search. Although other combinations are possible, the vast majority of implementations are based on the interface packaged with the index-based product.
Ex Libris offers two discovery services, Primo and Summon, both of which rely on a common Central Discovery Index. The user interface style and features for Primo and Summon differ substantially. Ex Libris also offers Primo VE, a version of the product that is deeply integrated with Alma. The survey does not differentiate between Primo and Primo VE.
Although some other types of libraries responded, the results were limited to those from academic libraries. Primo received 346 responses, EBSCO Discovery Service received 201, WorldCat Discovery Service received 107, and Summon received 60, for a total of 714.
Observations from the Discovery Survey Responses
One set of questions addressed the effectiveness of the discovery service for different types of users, including undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty members.
- For all the major discovery services, responses generally indicated that they worked better for undergraduates than for graduate students or faculty members.
- Summon and Primo received the highest ratings for undergraduate discovery with almost identical scores (7.04 / 7.01).
- Summon and Primo received the highest ratings for discovery for graduate students, (6.89 / 6.85)
- Rankings for discovery for faculty members were not well differentiated (Primo: 6.78; EDS: 6.72; Summon: 6.67; WorldCat: 6.34).
Another question asked about how well each product covered the library’s collections of resources.
- Results show very little differentiation in how well the discovery services cover the library's collection (Primo: 7.13; Summon: 7.08; EDS: 6.97; WDS: 6.67)
Libraries expect discovery services to be objective, without bias toward the content of any publisher or provider.
- WorldCat Discovery Services scored slightly higher than the other discovery services
- Scores for the others were not differentiated (Primo: 6.61; Summon: 6.52; EDS: 6.15)
Interest in the Open Discovery Initiative
The survey also explored interest and use of the Open Discovery Initiative. When asked about the importance of ODI, libraries using WorldCat Discovery Service expressed the highest interest (5.21), followed by EBSCO DIscovery Service (5.09), Primo (5.07), and Summon (5.02).
Only a small portion of libraries used the ODI as they considered the selection of their discovery service. Libraries using Primo indicated the highest level of use (13.4%), followed by Summon (10.1%) and WorldCat Discovery Service (8.6%) and EBSCO Discovery Service (8.04).
The following comments mentioned the Open Discovery Initiative:
I'm not familiar with the NISO Open Discovery Initiative.
I have not heard of the NISO Open Discovery Initiative.
We did not consider NISO Open Discovery Initiative when deciding on Primo as a consortium, but at [...] when we implement Primo, we intend to follow NISO Open Discovery Initiative.
I had not heard about the NISO Open Discovery Initiative before
The NISO Open Discovery Initiative was not on our radar when we were looking to migrate from Voyager, a search which began in 2011, and culminated with the acceptance and implementation of Alma and Primo in 2014/15.
I'm not familiar with the NISO Open Discovery Initiative.
If the NISO open discovery requirement was in the [...] frame work this would have been considered during our search for a new ILS/Discovery system.
I'm personally interested in the NISO Open Discovery Initiative, but haven't delved into it as yet. Also it has not been a campus or consortium topic of conversation.
Our institution does not serve undergraduate students. We were not aware of the NISO Open Discovery Initiative prior to this survey.
Effectiveness for Undergraduates
Statistics related to the question: Discovery Effectiveness for Undergraduates (2023)
| Discovery Effectiveness for Undergraduates | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Summon | 57 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 20 | 24 | 2 | 8 | 7.04 | 7 | 0.79 | |||
| Primo | 346 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 29 | 53 | 123 | 112 | 19 | 7 | 7.01 | 7 | 0.27 | ||
| EBSCO Discovery Service | 188 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 17 | 31 | 57 | 48 | 24 | 7 | 6.93 | 7 | 0.51 | ||
| WorldCat Discovery Service | 113 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 12 | 25 | 37 | 24 | 7 | 7 | 6.57 | 7 | 0.85 |
| All Responses | 797 | 16 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 20 | 64 | 125 | 269 | 226 | 65 | 7 | 6.84 | 7 | 0.18 |
Effectiveness for Graduate Students
Statistics related to the question: Discovery Effectiveness for Graduate Students (2023)
| Discovery Effectiveness for Graduate Students | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Primo | 316 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 24 | 62 | 116 | 87 | 17 | 7 | 6.89 | 7 | 0.34 | |
| Summon | 52 | 2 | 3 | 11 | 17 | 18 | 1 | 8 | 6.85 | 7 | 0.83 | ||||
| EBSCO Discovery Service | 173 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 19 | 27 | 57 | 35 | 19 | 7 | 6.64 | 7 | 0.53 | |
| WorldCat Discovery Service | 112 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 16 | 24 | 30 | 21 | 8 | 7 | 6.33 | 7 | 0.85 | |
| All Responses | 738 | 15 | 2 | 10 | 8 | 25 | 65 | 133 | 246 | 181 | 53 | 7 | 6.66 | 7 | 0.22 |
Effectiveness for Faculty Members
Statistics related to the question: Discovery Effectiveness for Faculty Members (2023)
| Discovery Effectiveness for Faculty Members | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Primo | 352 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 34 | 75 | 122 | 90 | 15 | 7 | 6.78 | 7 | 0.32 | |
| EBSCO Discovery Service | 196 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 20 | 44 | 51 | 43 | 22 | 7 | 6.72 | 7 | 0.36 | ||
| Summon | 60 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 27 | 14 | 1 | 7 | 6.67 | 7 | 0.77 | ||
| WorldCat Discovery Service | 116 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 16 | 25 | 33 | 21 | 8 | 7 | 6.34 | 7 | 0.84 | |
| All Responses | 814 | 8 | 3 | 8 | 14 | 32 | 83 | 159 | 263 | 188 | 56 | 7 | 6.64 | 7 | 0.21 |
Coverage of library resources
Statistics related to the question: Coverage of library resources (2023)
| Coverage of library resources | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Primo | 356 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 23 | 44 | 132 | 122 | 26 | 7 | 7.13 | 7 | 0.26 | |
| Summon | 59 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 20 | 19 | 5 | 7 | 7.08 | 7 | 0.91 | |||
| EBSCO Discovery Service | 201 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 17 | 30 | 61 | 59 | 23 | 7 | 6.97 | 7 | 0.35 |
| WorldCat Discovery Service | 117 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 10 | 19 | 35 | 30 | 11 | 7 | 6.67 | 7 | 0.83 | |
| All Responses | 823 | 10 | 3 | 9 | 14 | 13 | 53 | 112 | 268 | 259 | 82 | 7 | 6.97 | 7 | 0.17 |
Objectivity of Discovery Services
Statistics related to the question: Objectivity of the Discovery Service (2023)
| Objectivity of the Discovery Service | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| WorldCat Discovery Service | 115 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 16 | 23 | 32 | 24 | 8 | 6.94 | 7 | 0.84 | |
| Primo | 348 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 10 | 44 | 70 | 118 | 66 | 27 | 7 | 6.61 | 7 | 0.27 |
| Summon | 58 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 22 | 11 | 3 | 7 | 6.52 | 7 | 0.92 | |||
| EBSCO Discovery Service | 195 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 11 | 34 | 34 | 47 | 30 | 19 | 7 | 6.15 | 6 | 0.43 |
| All Responses | 802 | 15 | 8 | 15 | 17 | 26 | 105 | 137 | 232 | 156 | 91 | 7 | 6.52 | 7 | 0.18 |
Importance of Open Discovery Initiative
Statistics related to the question: Importance of Open Discovery Initiative (2023)
| Importance of Open Discovery Initiative | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| WorldCat Discovery Service | 87 | 10 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 15 | 8 | 19 | 10 | 7 | 7 | 5.21 | 6 | 0.43 |
| EBSCO Discovery Service | 152 | 18 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 20 | 30 | 21 | 18 | 15 | 16 | 5 | 5.09 | 5 | 0.41 |
| Primo | 274 | 33 | 4 | 15 | 18 | 14 | 60 | 33 | 47 | 33 | 17 | 5 | 5.07 | 5 | 0.30 |
| Summon | 46 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 14 | 6 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 5.02 | 5 | 0.74 | |
| All Responses | 636 | 85 | 12 | 32 | 32 | 53 | 136 | 73 | 98 | 66 | 49 | 5 | 4.96 | 5 | 0.20 |
Open Discovery Initiative Interest by Product
| Used Open Discovery Initiative for Discovery Selection | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery Service | Total Responses | Used ODI | percent |
| EBSCO Discovery Service | 205 | 22 | 10.73% |
| Primo | 362 | 47 | 12.98% |
| Summon | 61 | 8 | 13.11% |
| WorldCat Discovery Service | 120 | 12 | 10.00% |
| All Responses | 995 | 96 | 9.65% |
Statistics given for each Index-Based Discovery Service
EBSCO Discovery Service Statistics
2023 EBSCO Discovery Service Responses by Sector EBSCO Discovery Service all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg UndergradDiscovery 188 6.93
67 7.13 44 7.14 19 6.84 4 1 0 2 2 GraduateDiscovery 173 6.64
57 6.53 41 6.95 19 6.26 4 1 0 0 2 FacultyDiscovery 196 6.72
70 6.83 43 6.67 19 6.37 4 1 0 2 2 DiscoveryCoverage 201 6.97
70 6.96 44 7.11 19 7.05 4 1 0 3 2 DiscoveryObjectivity 195 6.15
69 5.97 43 6.30 19 6.11 4 1 0 1 2 ODIimportance 152 5.09
53 5.57 36 4.78 15 5.33 2 1 0 1 2
Primo
2023 Primo Responses by Sector Primo all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg UndergradDiscovery 346 7.01
75 7.35 106 7.12 82 6.79 0 0 0 0 9 6.22 GraduateDiscovery 316 6.89
55 7.11 97 6.99 81 6.68 0 0 0 0 9 6.78 FacultyDiscovery 352 6.78
77 7.14 107 6.88 82 6.50 0 0 0 0 9 6.44 DiscoveryCoverage 356 7.13
77 7.52 108 7.11 82 6.89 0 0 0 0 10 7.10 DiscoveryObjectivity 348 6.61
77 6.87 106 6.61 82 6.38 0 0 0 0 9 6.67 ODIimportance 274 5.07
54 4.93 83 4.96 68 5.53 0 0 0 0 8 5.25
Summon
2023 Summon Responses by Sector Summon all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg UndergradDiscovery 57 7.04
18 7.00 17 7.18 12 7.42 1 0 0 0 1 GraduateDiscovery 52 6.85
14 7.21 15 6.80 11 6.64 1 0 0 0 1 FacultyDiscovery 60 6.67
18 7.11 17 6.82 12 6.25 1 0 0 0 1 DiscoveryCoverage 59 7.08
18 6.89 17 7.06 12 7.58 1 0 0 0 1 DiscoveryObjectivity 58 6.52
16 6.19 17 6.29 12 7.17 1 0 0 0 1 ODIimportance 46 5.02
11 3.73 14 5.14 11 5.91 1 0 0 0 1
WorldCat Discovery Service
2023 WorldCat Discovery Service Responses by Sector WorldCat Discovery Service all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg UndergradDiscovery 113 6.57
45 6.82 29 6.76 9 6.89 2 0 0 1 1 GraduateDiscovery 112 6.33
42 6.38 28 6.68 9 6.33 2 0 0 1 1 FacultyDiscovery 116 6.34
46 6.48 29 6.66 9 5.78 2 0 0 1 1 DiscoveryCoverage 117 6.67
46 6.87 29 7.21 9 6.22 2 0 0 1 1 DiscoveryObjectivity 115 6.94
46 6.98 28 7.64 9 7.22 2 0 0 1 1 ODIimportance 87 5.21
33 5.00 23 5.35 7 6.86 2 0 0 1 1
Selected Statistical Tables
Emphasis on Peer Groups
| 2023 EBSCO Discovery Service Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EBSCO Discovery Service | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| UndergradDiscovery | 188 | 6.93 | 67 | 7.13 | 44 | 7.14 | 19 | 6.84 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | |||||
| GraduateDiscovery | 173 | 6.64 | 57 | 6.53 | 41 | 6.95 | 19 | 6.26 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |||||
| FacultyDiscovery | 196 | 6.72 | 70 | 6.83 | 43 | 6.67 | 19 | 6.37 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | |||||
| DiscoveryCoverage | 201 | 6.97 | 70 | 6.96 | 44 | 7.11 | 19 | 7.05 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | |||||
| DiscoveryObjectivity | 195 | 6.15 | 69 | 5.97 | 43 | 6.30 | 19 | 6.11 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| ODIimportance | 152 | 5.09 | 53 | 5.57 | 36 | 4.78 | 15 | 5.33 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| 2023 Primo Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primo | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| UndergradDiscovery | 346 | 7.01 | 75 | 7.35 | 106 | 7.12 | 82 | 6.79 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 6.22 | ||||
| GraduateDiscovery | 316 | 6.89 | 55 | 7.11 | 97 | 6.99 | 81 | 6.68 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 6.78 | ||||
| FacultyDiscovery | 352 | 6.78 | 77 | 7.14 | 107 | 6.88 | 82 | 6.50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 6.44 | ||||
| DiscoveryCoverage | 356 | 7.13 | 77 | 7.52 | 108 | 7.11 | 82 | 6.89 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 7.10 | ||||
| DiscoveryObjectivity | 348 | 6.61 | 77 | 6.87 | 106 | 6.61 | 82 | 6.38 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 6.67 | ||||
| ODIimportance | 274 | 5.07 | 54 | 4.93 | 83 | 4.96 | 68 | 5.53 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 5.25 | ||||
| 2023 Summon Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summon | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| UndergradDiscovery | 57 | 7.04 | 18 | 7.00 | 17 | 7.18 | 12 | 7.42 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||||
| GraduateDiscovery | 52 | 6.85 | 14 | 7.21 | 15 | 6.80 | 11 | 6.64 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||||
| FacultyDiscovery | 60 | 6.67 | 18 | 7.11 | 17 | 6.82 | 12 | 6.25 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||||
| DiscoveryCoverage | 59 | 7.08 | 18 | 6.89 | 17 | 7.06 | 12 | 7.58 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||||
| DiscoveryObjectivity | 58 | 6.52 | 16 | 6.19 | 17 | 6.29 | 12 | 7.17 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||||
| ODIimportance | 46 | 5.02 | 11 | 3.73 | 14 | 5.14 | 11 | 5.91 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||||
| 2023 WorldCat Discovery Service Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WorldCat Discovery Service | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium | |||||||||||||
| small | medium | large | small | medium | large | |||||||||||||
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | |
| UndergradDiscovery | 113 | 6.57 | 45 | 6.82 | 29 | 6.76 | 9 | 6.89 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| GraduateDiscovery | 112 | 6.33 | 42 | 6.38 | 28 | 6.68 | 9 | 6.33 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| FacultyDiscovery | 116 | 6.34 | 46 | 6.48 | 29 | 6.66 | 9 | 5.78 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| DiscoveryCoverage | 117 | 6.67 | 46 | 6.87 | 29 | 7.21 | 9 | 6.22 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| DiscoveryObjectivity | 115 | 6.94 | 46 | 6.98 | 28 | 7.64 | 9 | 7.22 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| ODIimportance | 87 | 5.21 | 33 | 5.00 | 23 | 5.35 | 7 | 6.86 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |||||
Public, academic, school, and special libraries each have distinct expectations for their automation products. Previous editions of survey report presented results in comprehensive tables that aggregate results given across all types and sizes of libraries. With the increased number of responses, combined with the enrichment of survey responses with demographic data from each responding library from its entry in the libraries.org directory, for the last three years the results have been presented primarily within peer groups. Separate tables are included for the key areas of ILS satisfaction and functionality completeness for public, academic, and school libraries and according to collection size categories.
Tables assembled according to peer groups provide a more fair set comparisons as libraries consider the best products and providers to meet their future automation needs.
This approach enables libraries to make more balanced comparisons and interpretations of the results. Presenting results through amalgamated tables gives a false impression that the products that serve very small libraries perform at a higher level than more sophisticated products designed to serve larger and more complex automation scenarios. Stronger and weaker products emerge more clearly when presented within tables organized by library type and collection size. Examples of the category combination tables are presented below. The interactive version of the survey results dynamically assembles statistical result tables according to any combination of report category, library type, collection size, and country.
Public Libraries
Large Public libraries: General ILS Satisfaction
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2023)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Symphony | 22 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 9 | 2 | 7 | 7.45 | 8 | 1.49 | |||||
| Polaris | 19 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 8 | 7.16 | 7 | 1.61 | ||||
| Sierra | 15 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 6.73 | 7 | 1.81 | |||||
| All Responses | 80 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 31 | 26 | 9 | 7 | 7.26 | 7 | 0.78 | ||||
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Large Public libraries: Overall ILS Functionality
Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2023)
| Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Symphony | 21 | 2 | 11 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 7.33 | 7 | 1.53 | ||||||
| Polaris | 19 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 7.26 | 7 | 1.61 | ||||
| Sierra | 15 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 6.67 | 7 | 2.07 | ||||||
| All Responses | 79 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 36 | 21 | 8 | 7 | 7.16 | 7 | 0.79 | ||
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Large Public libraries: Effectiveness for print resources
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2023)
| Print Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Symphony | 22 | 2 | 4 | 13 | 3 | 8 | 7.77 | 8 | 1.49 | ||||||
| Polaris | 18 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 7.72 | 8 | 1.65 | ||||||
| Sierra | 15 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 7.13 | 7 | 2.07 | |||||
| All Responses | 78 | 2 | 6 | 20 | 37 | 13 | 8 | 7.68 | 8 | 0.79 | |||||
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Large Public libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2023)
| Electronic Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Polaris | 19 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 6.89 | 7 | 1.84 | ||||
| Symphony | 22 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 7 | 6.23 | 7 | 0.64 | |||
| All Responses | 76 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 13 | 10 | 24 | 14 | 5 | 7 | 6.30 | 7 | 0.34 | ||
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Large Public libraries: Satisfaction with customer support
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2023)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS Support | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Symphony | 22 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 8.05 | 8 | 1.92 | |||||
| Polaris | 19 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 6.95 | 7 | 1.61 | ||||
| Sierra | 15 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 6.93 | 7 | 2.07 | ||||
| All Responses | 80 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 9 | 16 | 27 | 20 | 8 | 7.46 | 8 | 1.01 | |||
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Large Public libraries: Company Loyalty
Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2023)
| Loyalty to Company Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Polaris | 19 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 7.68 | 8 | 1.84 | |||||
| Symphony | 22 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 4 | 8 | 7.55 | 8 | 1.49 | |||||
| Sierra | 15 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 8 | 7.20 | 8 | 2.07 | ||||
| All Responses | 79 | 1 | 5 | 9 | 15 | 26 | 23 | 8 | 7.62 | 8 | 0.79 | ||||
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Public libraries: General ILS Satisfaction
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2023)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 25 | 2 | 2 | 13 | 8 | 8 | 8.08 | 8 | 1.80 | ||||||
| Polaris | 40 | 1 | 4 | 17 | 13 | 5 | 7 | 7.38 | 7 | 1.42 | |||||
| Spydus | 15 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 7.13 | 7 | 1.81 | ||||||
| Sierra | 27 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 11 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 6.74 | 7 | 1.15 | |||
| Library.Solution | 15 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 6.73 | 7 | 1.81 | |||
| Symphony | 56 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 16 | 18 | 4 | 8 | 6.54 | 7 | 1.07 |
| Horizon | 18 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 5.89 | 7 | 1.89 | |||
| All Responses | 248 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 11 | 30 | 73 | 83 | 30 | 8 | 6.98 | 7 | 0.44 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Public libraries: Overall ILS Functionality
Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2023)
| Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 25 | 1 | 5 | 14 | 5 | 8 | 7.92 | 8 | 1.60 | ||||||
| Spydus | 15 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 8 | 7.40 | 8 | 1.81 | |||||||
| Polaris | 40 | 1 | 7 | 15 | 14 | 3 | 7 | 7.28 | 7 | 1.26 | |||||
| Library.Solution | 15 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 6.87 | 7 | 1.81 | ||||
| Sierra | 27 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 11 | 8 | 1 | 7 | 6.81 | 7 | 1.35 | ||||
| Symphony | 56 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 18 | 10 | 6 | 7 | 6.61 | 7 | 0.94 | ||
| Horizon | 18 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 6.11 | 7 | 1.89 | |||
| All Responses | 247 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 15 | 37 | 76 | 81 | 24 | 8 | 6.99 | 7 | 0.45 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Public libraries: Effectiveness for print resources
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2023)
| Print Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 25 | 1 | 3 | 11 | 10 | 8 | 8.16 | 8 | 1.80 | ||||||
| Polaris | 40 | 9 | 25 | 6 | 8 | 7.92 | 8 | 1.42 | |||||||
| Spydus | 15 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 3 | 8 | 7.80 | 8 | 2.07 | ||||||
| Sierra | 27 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 13 | 3 | 8 | 7.37 | 8 | 1.73 | ||||
| Library.Solution | 15 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 7.20 | 8 | 2.07 | ||||
| Horizon | 18 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 3 | 8 | 7.17 | 8 | 1.89 | ||||
| Symphony | 56 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 12 | 20 | 8 | 8 | 7.02 | 8 | 1.07 | ||
| All Responses | 248 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 19 | 46 | 112 | 52 | 8 | 7.51 | 8 | 0.51 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Public libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2023)
| Electronic Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 24 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 7.25 | 8 | 1.63 | |||
| Spydus | 15 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 3 | 7 | 6.60 | 7 | 1.03 | |||||
| Polaris | 40 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 9 | 8 | 10 | 2 | 8 | 6.15 | 7 | 1.42 | |
| Symphony | 56 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 14 | 12 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6.00 | 6 | 0.94 | |
| Library.Solution | 15 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5.47 | 6 | 0.00 | ||
| Sierra | 26 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 5.42 | 6 | 1.37 | |||
| Horizon | 17 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 4.76 | 5 | 1.70 | |||
| All Responses | 244 | 8 | 5 | 9 | 16 | 13 | 29 | 43 | 60 | 38 | 23 | 7 | 5.97 | 6 | 0.32 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Public libraries: Satisfaction with customer support
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2023)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS Support | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 25 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 11 | 9 | 7.84 | 8 | 1.60 | |||||
| Symphony | 56 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 12 | 16 | 17 | 9 | 7.41 | 8 | 1.07 | ||||
| Library.Solution | 15 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 9 | 7.33 | 7 | 1.29 | ||||
| Horizon | 18 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 7 | 7.11 | 7 | 1.65 | ||||
| Polaris | 40 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 12 | 11 | 6 | 7 | 6.95 | 7 | 1.42 | |||
| Sierra | 26 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 10 | 8 | 6.50 | 7 | 1.57 | |||
| Spydus | 15 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 6.27 | 6 | 1.81 | ||||
| All Responses | 247 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 17 | 28 | 54 | 64 | 66 | 9 | 7.20 | 8 | 0.51 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Public libraries: Company Loyalty
Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2023)
| Loyalty to Company Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 25 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 15 | 9 | 8.24 | 9 | 1.80 | |||||
| Polaris | 39 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 7 | 14 | 5 | 8 | 6.90 | 7 | 1.44 | |
| Symphony | 54 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 11 | 12 | 7 | 6.41 | 7 | 0.82 |
| Sierra | 26 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 6.38 | 7 | 0.78 | ||
| Library.Solution | 15 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 9 | 6.33 | 7 | 1.03 | |||
| Horizon | 17 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 5.59 | 7 | 1.21 | |||
| All Responses | 241 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 10 | 14 | 27 | 43 | 58 | 64 | 9 | 6.83 | 8 | 0.52 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Small Public libraries: General ILS Satisfaction
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2023)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Atriuum | 18 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 9 | 7.94 | 8 | 1.65 | |||||
| Apollo | 22 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 10 | 9 | 7.91 | 8 | 1.71 | |||||
| Evergreen -- Equinox | 18 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 8 | 7.78 | 8 | 1.89 | |||||
| Polaris | 30 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 11 | 8 | 8 | 7.77 | 8 | 1.64 | |||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 33 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 12 | 8 | 8 | 7.52 | 8 | 1.57 | ||||
| VERSO | 31 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 13 | 3 | 8 | 7.23 | 8 | 1.26 | |||
| Symphony | 35 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 13 | 10 | 7 | 6.54 | 7 | 1.35 | |||
| All Responses | 249 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 14 | 23 | 73 | 77 | 52 | 8 | 7.35 | 8 | 0.44 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Small Public libraries: Overall ILS Functionality
Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2023)
| Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Polaris | 30 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 7.90 | 8 | 1.64 | |||||
| Apollo | 22 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 9 | 7.86 | 8 | 1.71 | |||||
| Evergreen -- Equinox | 18 | 1 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 7.72 | 8 | 1.65 | ||||||
| Atriuum | 18 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 7.56 | 8 | 1.41 | ||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 32 | 2 | 1 | 12 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 7.41 | 8 | 1.59 | |||||
| VERSO | 32 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 16 | 2 | 8 | 7.19 | 8 | 1.06 | |||
| Symphony | 35 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 16 | 10 | 7 | 6.69 | 7 | 1.35 | |||
| All Responses | 248 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 9 | 21 | 81 | 77 | 49 | 7 | 7.37 | 8 | 0.44 | |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Small Public libraries: Effectiveness for print resources
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2023)
| Print Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Atriuum | 18 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 9 | 9 | 8.22 | 9 | 2.12 | ||||||
| Polaris | 30 | 2 | 4 | 13 | 11 | 8 | 8.10 | 8 | 1.64 | ||||||
| Apollo | 22 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 13 | 9 | 8.00 | 9 | 1.92 | |||||
| VERSO | 31 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 11 | 10 | 8 | 7.77 | 8 | 1.08 | ||||
| Evergreen -- Equinox | 18 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 7.61 | 8 | 1.89 | |||||
| Symphony | 35 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 20 | 2 | 8 | 7.34 | 8 | 1.35 | ||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 33 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 13 | 9 | 8 | 7.12 | 8 | 1.57 | ||||
| All Responses | 246 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 13 | 47 | 95 | 74 | 8 | 7.65 | 8 | 0.51 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Small Public libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2023)
| Electronic Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Atriuum | 18 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 7.28 | 8 | 1.18 | ||||
| Apollo | 22 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 9 | 7.09 | 8 | 1.49 | ||||
| Polaris | 30 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 9 | 6.80 | 8 | 1.64 | ||
| VERSO | 30 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 9 | 8 | 3 | 7 | 6.40 | 7 | 1.10 | ||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 32 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 7 | 6.06 | 7 | 1.41 | ||
| Evergreen -- Equinox | 18 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 6.00 | 7 | 0.71 | ||
| Symphony | 34 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 5.41 | 6 | 0.86 | ||
| All Responses | 244 | 20 | 5 | 11 | 4 | 14 | 21 | 37 | 52 | 46 | 34 | 7 | 5.98 | 7 | 0.00 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Small Public libraries: Satisfaction with customer support
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2023)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS Support | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 22 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 13 | 9 | 8.23 | 9 | 1.92 | |||||
| Atriuum | 18 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 9 | 8.17 | 9 | 2.12 | |||||
| Evergreen -- Equinox | 18 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 9 | 7.83 | 9 | 1.65 | ||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 33 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 11 | 14 | 9 | 7.73 | 8 | 1.57 | ||||
| VERSO | 32 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 14 | 9 | 7.59 | 8 | 1.06 | ||
| Polaris | 30 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 7.23 | 8 | 1.64 | |||
| Symphony | 35 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 7 | 6.77 | 7 | 1.35 | ||
| All Responses | 247 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 19 | 18 | 40 | 51 | 100 | 9 | 7.47 | 8 | 0.32 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Small Public libraries: Company Loyalty
Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2023)
| Loyalty to Company Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 22 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 13 | 9 | 7.86 | 9 | 1.92 | |||||
| Atriuum | 18 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 10 | 9 | 7.83 | 9 | 2.12 | ||||
| Evergreen -- Equinox | 17 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 10 | 9 | 7.82 | 9 | 2.18 | |||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 32 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 8 | 12 | 9 | 7.50 | 8 | 1.59 | |||
| Polaris | 30 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 10 | 7 | 8 | 7.13 | 8 | 1.64 | ||||
| VERSO | 31 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 6.97 | 8 | 1.26 | |||
| Symphony | 35 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 11 | 9 | 2 | 7 | 6.37 | 7 | 1.01 | |||
| All Responses | 246 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 25 | 15 | 48 | 55 | 80 | 9 | 7.14 | 8 | 0.32 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Very Small Public libraries: General ILS Satisfaction
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2023)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 30 | 2 | 10 | 18 | 9 | 8.53 | 9 | 1.46 | |||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 30 | 1 | 9 | 8 | 12 | 9 | 8.03 | 8 | 1.64 | ||||||
| Sierra | 18 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 1 | 8 | 7.89 | 8 | 2.12 | ||||||
| Atriuum | 30 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 11 | 9 | 7.87 | 8 | 1.46 | |||||
| Symphony | 24 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 7.71 | 8 | 1.84 | |||||
| VERSO | 58 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 11 | 20 | 13 | 8 | 7.26 | 8 | 1.18 | ||
| All Responses | 268 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 25 | 48 | 91 | 88 | 8 | 7.68 | 8 | 0.55 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Very Small Public libraries: Overall ILS Functionality
Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2023)
| Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 30 | 2 | 10 | 18 | 9 | 8.53 | 9 | 1.46 | |||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 30 | 1 | 7 | 10 | 12 | 9 | 8.10 | 8 | 1.64 | ||||||
| Sierra | 18 | 1 | 2 | 14 | 1 | 8 | 7.83 | 8 | 2.12 | ||||||
| Symphony | 24 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 7.75 | 8 | 1.84 | |||||
| Atriuum | 30 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 12 | 9 | 7.73 | 8 | 1.46 | |||||
| VERSO | 57 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 11 | 19 | 14 | 8 | 7.25 | 8 | 1.19 | ||
| All Responses | 265 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 21 | 48 | 87 | 89 | 9 | 7.64 | 8 | 0.55 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Very Small Public libraries: Effectiveness for print resources
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2023)
| Print Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 30 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 18 | 9 | 8.17 | 9 | 1.46 | |||||
| Sierra | 18 | 1 | 15 | 2 | 8 | 8.06 | 8 | 2.12 | |||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 29 | 1 | 7 | 11 | 10 | 8 | 8.00 | 8 | 1.49 | ||||||
| Atriuum | 29 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 10 | 12 | 9 | 7.79 | 8 | 0.00 | |||||
| Symphony | 24 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 10 | 7 | 8 | 7.79 | 8 | 1.84 | |||||
| VERSO | 58 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 25 | 15 | 8 | 7.50 | 8 | 1.18 | |||
| All Responses | 265 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 9 | 18 | 29 | 103 | 96 | 8 | 7.74 | 8 | 0.55 | ||
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Very Small Public libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2023)
| Electronic Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 29 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 16 | 9 | 8.28 | 9 | 1.49 | ||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 29 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 11 | 9 | 8 | 7.07 | 8 | 1.11 | ||
| Atriuum | 28 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 10 | 9 | 6.96 | 8 | 0.00 | |||
| VERSO | 54 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 8 | 16 | 11 | 8 | 6.59 | 8 | 1.22 | |
| Symphony | 22 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 6.18 | 7 | 1.92 | ||
| Sierra | 18 | 1 | 12 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4.83 | 4 | 2.12 | |||||
| All Responses | 250 | 17 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 20 | 22 | 22 | 29 | 53 | 72 | 9 | 6.52 | 8 | 0.51 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Very Small Public libraries: Satisfaction with customer support
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2023)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS Support | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 29 | 1 | 6 | 22 | 9 | 8.72 | 9 | 1.49 | |||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 29 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 19 | 9 | 8.41 | 9 | 1.67 | ||||||
| Atriuum | 29 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 14 | 9 | 8.07 | 8 | 1.49 | |||||
| Symphony | 24 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 7.46 | 8 | 1.84 | ||||
| VERSO | 57 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 9 | 15 | 23 | 9 | 7.44 | 8 | 1.19 | |
| Sierra | 18 | 13 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5.72 | 5 | 1.65 | ||||||
| All Responses | 259 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 26 | 10 | 32 | 55 | 123 | 9 | 7.68 | 8 | 0.56 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Very Small Public libraries: Company Loyalty
Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2023)
| Loyalty to Company Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 30 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 21 | 9 | 8.33 | 9 | 1.46 | |||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 29 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 15 | 9 | 8.31 | 9 | 1.67 | ||||||
| Atriuum | 30 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 14 | 9 | 7.53 | 8 | 1.46 | |||
| Symphony | 24 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7.38 | 8 | 1.84 | |||||
| VERSO | 54 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 11 | 19 | 9 | 6.91 | 8 | 1.22 |
| Sierra | 18 | 1 | 13 | 4 | 5 | 5.39 | 5 | 1.65 | |||||||
| All Responses | 260 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 29 | 14 | 33 | 53 | 106 | 9 | 7.27 | 8 | 0.56 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
All Public libraries: General ILS Satisfaction
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (2023)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 60 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 20 | 29 | 9 | 8.17 | 8 | 1.03 | |||||
| Atriuum | 54 | 2 | 4 | 11 | 17 | 20 | 9 | 7.91 | 8 | 1.09 | |||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 96 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 22 | 35 | 31 | 8 | 7.83 | 8 | 0.92 | |||
| Evergreen -- Equinox | 37 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 12 | 10 | 8 | 7.68 | 8 | 1.15 | |||||
| Polaris | 110 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 10 | 36 | 37 | 22 | 8 | 7.50 | 8 | 0.86 | |||
| VERSO | 93 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 21 | 35 | 17 | 8 | 7.28 | 8 | 0.93 | ||
| Spydus | 26 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 13 | 8 | 7.27 | 8 | 1.57 | ||||||
| Library.Solution | 37 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 12 | 7 | 8 | 7.16 | 8 | 1.48 | |||
| Sierra | 76 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 16 | 22 | 26 | 3 | 8 | 6.88 | 7 | 0.80 | ||
| Symphony | 148 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 19 | 49 | 47 | 13 | 7 | 6.85 | 7 | 0.66 |
| Horizon | 38 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 14 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 6.53 | 7 | 1.14 | |||
| All Responses | 876 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 16 | 13 | 36 | 92 | 232 | 285 | 184 | 8 | 7.32 | 8 | 0.24 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
All Public libraries: Overall ILS Functionality
Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Public) (2023)
| Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 60 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 19 | 29 | 9 | 8.12 | 8 | 1.03 | ||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 95 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 25 | 34 | 29 | 8 | 7.79 | 8 | 0.92 | ||||
| Atriuum | 54 | 2 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 19 | 9 | 7.70 | 8 | 0.95 | |||||
| Evergreen -- Equinox | 36 | 3 | 16 | 11 | 6 | 7 | 7.56 | 7 | 1.17 | ||||||
| Polaris | 109 | 1 | 3 | 12 | 36 | 35 | 22 | 7 | 7.52 | 8 | 0.86 | ||||
| Spydus | 26 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 14 | 8 | 7.35 | 8 | 1.57 | ||||||
| VERSO | 93 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 20 | 37 | 16 | 8 | 7.24 | 8 | 0.93 | ||
| Library.Solution | 37 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 11 | 12 | 6 | 8 | 7.16 | 7 | 1.32 | |||
| Sierra | 75 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 13 | 24 | 30 | 2 | 8 | 7.01 | 7 | 0.92 | |||
| Symphony | 147 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 13 | 21 | 53 | 38 | 15 | 7 | 6.94 | 7 | 0.66 | |
| Horizon | 38 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 12 | 11 | 2 | 7 | 6.61 | 7 | 1.14 | ||
| All Responses | 870 | 5 | 3 | 9 | 11 | 13 | 34 | 97 | 249 | 276 | 173 | 8 | 7.32 | 8 | 0.24 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
All Public libraries: Effectiveness for print resources
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (2023)
| Print Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 60 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 18 | 34 | 9 | 8.13 | 9 | 1.16 | |||||
| Atriuum | 53 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 18 | 24 | 9 | 8.00 | 8 | 0.96 | |||||
| Polaris | 109 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 23 | 51 | 29 | 8 | 7.92 | 8 | 0.86 | ||||
| Spydus | 26 | 2 | 4 | 15 | 5 | 8 | 7.88 | 8 | 1.77 | ||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 94 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 17 | 38 | 31 | 8 | 7.71 | 8 | 0.83 | |||
| VERSO | 93 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 14 | 39 | 26 | 8 | 7.62 | 8 | 0.93 | ||
| Evergreen -- Equinox | 37 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 15 | 8 | 8 | 7.57 | 8 | 1.32 | ||||
| Library.Solution | 37 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 13 | 9 | 8 | 7.41 | 8 | 1.48 | ||||
| Horizon | 37 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 18 | 6 | 8 | 7.38 | 8 | 1.32 | ||||
| Sierra | 74 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 15 | 39 | 6 | 8 | 7.34 | 8 | 0.93 | |||
| Symphony | 148 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 16 | 32 | 66 | 22 | 8 | 7.31 | 8 | 0.66 | |
| All Responses | 868 | 15 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 25 | 60 | 148 | 358 | 242 | 8 | 7.63 | 8 | 0.27 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
All Public libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (2023)
| Electronic Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 59 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 12 | 13 | 25 | 9 | 7.69 | 8 | 0.91 | ||||
| Atriuum | 52 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 11 | 10 | 16 | 9 | 6.92 | 8 | 0.83 | |||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 92 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 10 | 17 | 27 | 18 | 8 | 6.76 | 7 | 0.63 |
| Polaris | 109 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 25 | 18 | 24 | 20 | 6 | 6.61 | 7 | 0.86 |
| VERSO | 88 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 7 | 18 | 26 | 15 | 8 | 6.59 | 7 | 0.96 | |
| Spydus | 26 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 14 | 4 | 7 | 6.54 | 7 | 1.37 | ||||
| Evergreen -- Equinox | 37 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 5.97 | 7 | 0.82 |
| Symphony | 145 | 10 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 14 | 27 | 35 | 24 | 13 | 7 | 5.86 | 6 | 0.42 |
| Library.Solution | 36 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 5.69 | 6 | 1.33 | |
| Horizon | 37 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 5.14 | 6 | 0.82 |
| Sierra | 72 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 19 | 12 | 8 | 13 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 5.11 | 5 | 0.94 | |
| All Responses | 844 | 49 | 16 | 23 | 31 | 56 | 87 | 118 | 172 | 154 | 138 | 7 | 6.16 | 7 | 0.17 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
All Public libraries: Satisfaction with customer support
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (2023)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS Support | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 59 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 13 | 38 | 9 | 8.31 | 9 | 1.17 | ||||
| Atriuum | 53 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 13 | 28 | 9 | 8.11 | 9 | 1.10 | ||||
| Evergreen -- Equinox | 37 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 19 | 9 | 8.03 | 9 | 1.32 | ||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 95 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 10 | 25 | 48 | 9 | 7.95 | 9 | 0.92 | ||
| Library.Solution | 37 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 18 | 9 | 7.76 | 8 | 1.48 | ||||
| VERSO | 93 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 13 | 25 | 38 | 9 | 7.52 | 8 | 0.93 | |
| Horizon | 38 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 15 | 6 | 12 | 7 | 7.34 | 7 | 1.30 | |||
| Symphony | 148 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 11 | 17 | 33 | 37 | 42 | 9 | 7.30 | 8 | 0.66 | |
| Polaris | 108 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 12 | 12 | 27 | 25 | 24 | 7 | 7.04 | 7 | 0.87 | ||
| Spydus | 26 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 6.50 | 7 | 1.37 | ||||
| Sierra | 72 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 22 | 8 | 14 | 20 | 2 | 5 | 6.21 | 7 | 0.94 | ||
| All Responses | 863 | 7 | 5 | 11 | 19 | 14 | 71 | 70 | 148 | 203 | 315 | 9 | 7.43 | 8 | 0.27 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
All Public libraries: Company Loyalty
Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (2023)
| Loyalty to Company Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Apollo | 60 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 7 | 38 | 9 | 8.10 | 9 | 1.16 | |||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 94 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 14 | 24 | 47 | 9 | 7.98 | 9 | 0.93 | ||
| Evergreen -- Equinox | 36 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 18 | 9 | 7.92 | 9 | 1.33 | |||||
| Atriuum | 54 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 14 | 25 | 9 | 7.56 | 8 | 0.95 | ||
| Polaris | 109 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 16 | 16 | 34 | 25 | 8 | 7.13 | 8 | 0.86 |
| Library.Solution | 37 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 15 | 9 | 7.08 | 8 | 1.48 | |
| Spydus | 25 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 9 | 2 | 8 | 6.96 | 7 | 1.60 | ||||
| VERSO | 89 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 12 | 22 | 28 | 9 | 6.93 | 8 | 0.95 |
| Symphony | 146 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 12 | 12 | 38 | 38 | 26 | 7 | 6.64 | 7 | 0.50 |
| Horizon | 37 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 6.62 | 7 | 1.48 | ||
| Sierra | 74 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 21 | 7 | 16 | 12 | 9 | 5 | 6.18 | 7 | 0.93 | |
| All Responses | 857 | 24 | 13 | 15 | 13 | 25 | 77 | 69 | 142 | 198 | 281 | 9 | 7.10 | 8 | 0.27 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Academic Libraries
Large Academic libraries: General ILS Satisfaction
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2023)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Alma | 98 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 18 | 50 | 21 | 1 | 7 | 6.84 | 7 | 0.61 | |||
| Sierra | 23 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 9 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 5.30 | 5 | 0.83 | |||
| All Responses | 155 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 20 | 28 | 65 | 26 | 2 | 7 | 6.42 | 7 | 0.48 | ||
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Large Academic libraries: Overall ILS Functionality
Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2023)
| Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Alma | 98 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 17 | 45 | 25 | 1 | 7 | 6.85 | 7 | 0.61 | |||
| Sierra | 23 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 5.70 | 6 | 0.83 | |||
| All Responses | 155 | 2 | 8 | 11 | 14 | 31 | 58 | 30 | 1 | 7 | 6.34 | 7 | 0.48 | ||
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Large Academic libraries: Effectiveness for print resources
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2023)
| Print Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Sierra | 23 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 10 | 1 | 8 | 7.13 | 7 | 1.04 | ||||
| Alma | 98 | 4 | 3 | 16 | 36 | 34 | 5 | 7 | 7.10 | 7 | 0.71 | ||||
| All Responses | 155 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 21 | 54 | 56 | 8 | 8 | 7.06 | 7 | 0.56 | |||
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Large Academic libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2023)
| Electronic Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Alma | 98 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 21 | 27 | 37 | 1 | 8 | 6.87 | 7 | 0.51 | |||
| Sierra | 23 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4.43 | 4 | 0.42 | ||
| All Responses | 155 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 11 | 7 | 15 | 30 | 38 | 40 | 2 | 8 | 6.05 | 7 | 0.40 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Large Academic libraries: Satisfaction with customer support
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2023)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS Support | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Sierra | 23 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 6.09 | 6 | 1.46 | |||
| Alma | 98 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 12 | 16 | 19 | 26 | 10 | 7 | 5.48 | 6 | 0.51 | |
| All Responses | 155 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 18 | 20 | 29 | 44 | 19 | 6 | 7 | 5.83 | 6 | 0.40 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Large Academic libraries: Company Loyalty
Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2023)
| Loyalty to Company Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Alma | 96 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 7 | 27 | 27 | 11 | 7 | 6.65 | 7 | 0.51 | |
| Sierra | 23 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 5.04 | 5 | 0.00 | |
| All Responses | 153 | 6 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 9 | 17 | 11 | 37 | 35 | 25 | 7 | 6.42 | 7 | 0.40 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Academic libraries: General ILS Satisfaction
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2023)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Alma | 128 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 17 | 52 | 42 | 8 | 7 | 7.13 | 7 | 0.80 | |||
| WorldShare Management Services | 36 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 15 | 2 | 8 | 7.11 | 7 | 1.33 | ||||
| Symphony | 17 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 6.35 | 7 | 2.18 | |||
| Sierra | 25 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 4.96 | 6 | 1.00 | |||
| All Responses | 244 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 17 | 34 | 85 | 69 | 19 | 7 | 6.84 | 7 | 0.58 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Academic libraries: Overall ILS Functionality
Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2023)
| Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Alma | 128 | 3 | 6 | 14 | 48 | 46 | 11 | 7 | 7.26 | 7 | 0.80 | ||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 35 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 3 | 8 | 6.91 | 7 | 1.35 | |||
| Symphony | 17 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 6.18 | 6 | 1.94 | |||
| Sierra | 25 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 5.20 | 6 | 1.60 | |||
| All Responses | 243 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 9 | 19 | 38 | 75 | 71 | 19 | 7 | 6.80 | 7 | 0.58 | |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Academic libraries: Effectiveness for print resources
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2023)
| Print Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| WorldShare Management Services | 34 | 5 | 8 | 14 | 7 | 8 | 7.68 | 8 | 1.37 | ||||||
| Alma | 128 | 2 | 8 | 9 | 38 | 55 | 16 | 8 | 7.44 | 8 | 0.80 | ||||
| Symphony | 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 7.18 | 7 | 2.18 | ||||
| Sierra | 25 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 2 | 8 | 6.88 | 7 | 1.60 | |||
| All Responses | 242 | 1 | 5 | 11 | 20 | 69 | 96 | 40 | 8 | 7.47 | 8 | 0.58 | |||
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Academic libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2023)
| Electronic Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Alma | 128 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 22 | 42 | 46 | 10 | 8 | 7.18 | 7 | 0.80 | |||
| WorldShare Management Services | 35 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 5 | 8 | 7.00 | 7 | 1.35 | ||||
| Symphony | 16 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 6.00 | 6 | 2.25 | |||
| Sierra | 25 | 1 | 3 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3.12 | 2 | 0.60 | ||
| All Responses | 242 | 3 | 4 | 16 | 5 | 7 | 17 | 44 | 62 | 66 | 18 | 8 | 6.41 | 7 | 0.51 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Academic libraries: Satisfaction with customer support
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2023)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS Support | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Symphony | 17 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 7.59 | 8 | 2.18 | |||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 34 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 13 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7.24 | 7 | 1.37 | ||||
| Alma | 128 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 12 | 11 | 29 | 39 | 25 | 6 | 7 | 6.38 | 7 | 0.80 | |
| Sierra | 24 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 7 | 5.08 | 6 | 1.22 | ||
| All Responses | 239 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 16 | 16 | 42 | 68 | 50 | 32 | 7 | 6.66 | 7 | 0.58 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Medium-sized Academic libraries: Company Loyalty
Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2023)
| Loyalty to Company Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| Alma | 127 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 14 | 15 | 33 | 37 | 21 | 8 | 7.02 | 7 | 0.80 |
| WorldShare Management Services | 35 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 9 | 7 | 9 | 7 | 6.83 | 7 | 1.35 | |
| Symphony | 17 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 6.82 | 7 | 2.18 | ||||
| Sierra | 25 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3.84 | 4 | 1.20 | |||
| All Responses | 242 | 8 | 2 | 11 | 5 | 8 | 24 | 28 | 55 | 53 | 48 | 7 | 6.61 | 7 | 0.58 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Small Academic libraries: General ILS Satisfaction
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2023)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 16 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 9 | 8.44 | 9 | 2.25 | ||||||
| Alma | 92 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 8 | 30 | 36 | 8 | 8 | 7.14 | 7 | 0.73 | |
| WorldShare Management Services | 51 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 16 | 17 | 6 | 8 | 7.04 | 7 | 1.26 | ||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 24 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 7.00 | 8 | 1.43 | |||
| Symphony | 19 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 6.21 | 6 | 1.15 | |||
| Sierra | 26 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 5.77 | 7 | 1.57 | |
| All Responses | 300 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 12 | 10 | 15 | 35 | 86 | 87 | 49 | 8 | 7.02 | 7 | 0.52 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Small Academic libraries: Overall ILS Functionality
Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2023)
| Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 16 | 2 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 8.13 | 8 | 2.00 | |||||||
| Alma | 93 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 23 | 39 | 16 | 8 | 7.49 | 8 | 0.73 | ||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 50 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 16 | 16 | 7 | 7 | 7.18 | 7 | 1.27 | ||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 24 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 10 | 3 | 8 | 7.04 | 8 | 1.22 | ||||
| Symphony | 19 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 8 | 6.37 | 7 | 1.38 | |||
| Sierra | 26 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 6.12 | 7 | 1.57 | ||
| All Responses | 300 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 13 | 15 | 37 | 74 | 107 | 44 | 8 | 7.15 | 8 | 0.46 | |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Small Academic libraries: Effectiveness for print resources
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2023)
| Print Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 16 | 1 | 2 | 13 | 9 | 8.63 | 9 | 2.25 | |||||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 51 | 1 | 3 | 15 | 18 | 14 | 8 | 7.76 | 8 | 1.26 | |||||
| Alma | 93 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 25 | 40 | 18 | 8 | 7.62 | 8 | 0.73 | ||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 23 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 7.43 | 8 | 1.67 | ||||
| Sierra | 25 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7.16 | 8 | 1.60 | ||||
| Symphony | 19 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 2 | 8 | 7.16 | 7 | 1.61 | ||||
| All Responses | 299 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 18 | 70 | 106 | 86 | 8 | 7.69 | 8 | 0.52 | ||
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Small Academic libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2023)
| Electronic Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 16 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 12 | 8 | 7.06 | 8 | 2.00 | ||||||
| Alma | 93 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 13 | 22 | 32 | 12 | 8 | 6.98 | 7 | 0.73 | |
| WorldShare Management Services | 51 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 16 | 13 | 6 | 7 | 6.82 | 7 | 1.26 | ||||
| Symphony | 19 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 5.00 | 5 | 0.00 | |||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 23 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 8 | 4.87 | 5 | 1.67 | |
| Sierra | 25 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 3.84 | 3 | 1.20 | ||
| All Responses | 297 | 15 | 5 | 11 | 23 | 13 | 26 | 36 | 57 | 85 | 26 | 8 | 6.08 | 7 | 0.46 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Small Academic libraries: Satisfaction with customer support
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2023)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS Support | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 16 | 1 | 5 | 10 | 9 | 8.56 | 9 | 2.25 | |||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 24 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 9 | 7.38 | 8 | 1.84 | ||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 51 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 12 | 12 | 15 | 9 | 7.25 | 8 | 1.26 | |
| Symphony | 19 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 6.89 | 7 | 1.84 | ||||
| Alma | 92 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 12 | 28 | 22 | 9 | 7 | 6.58 | 7 | 0.73 | ||
| Sierra | 26 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 5.88 | 7 | 1.77 | |
| All Responses | 297 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 12 | 24 | 28 | 64 | 71 | 79 | 9 | 7.06 | 8 | 0.52 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
Small Academic libraries: Company Loyalty
Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2023)
| Loyalty to Company Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 16 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 10 | 9 | 8.44 | 9 | 2.00 | ||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 24 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 7.79 | 8 | 1.84 | |||||
| Alma | 90 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 21 | 30 | 17 | 8 | 7.00 | 8 | 0.74 | ||
| WorldShare Management Services | 51 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 10 | 10 | 14 | 9 | 6.88 | 7 | 1.26 | |
| Sierra | 26 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 5.92 | 7 | 1.77 | |
| Symphony | 18 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 5.89 | 7 | 1.18 | |||
| All Responses | 293 | 10 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 23 | 27 | 54 | 73 | 84 | 9 | 7.03 | 8 | 0.53 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
All Academic libraries: General ILS Satisfaction
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (2023)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 23 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 18 | 9 | 8.52 | 9 | 1.88 | ||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 28 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 11 | 6 | 8 | 7.18 | 8 | 1.70 | |||
| FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services | 26 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 10 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 7.12 | 7 | 1.18 | ||||
| Alma | 334 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 17 | 44 | 136 | 105 | 20 | 7 | 7.06 | 7 | 0.49 | |
| WorldShare Management Services | 101 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 12 | 35 | 33 | 9 | 7 | 7.00 | 7 | 0.90 | |
| Symphony | 43 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 16 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 6.30 | 7 | 1.37 | |||
| Sierra | 74 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 16 | 14 | 17 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 5.35 | 6 | 0.93 |
| All Responses | 731 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 22 | 27 | 55 | 98 | 246 | 192 | 77 | 7 | 6.85 | 7 | 0.22 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
All Academic libraries: Overall ILS Functionality
Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: Academic) (2023)
| Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 23 | 2 | 12 | 9 | 8 | 8.22 | 8 | 1.88 | |||||||
| Alma | 335 | 1 | 9 | 18 | 40 | 122 | 116 | 29 | 7 | 7.20 | 7 | 0.49 | |||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 28 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 13 | 3 | 8 | 7.14 | 8 | 1.51 | ||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 99 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 20 | 28 | 31 | 10 | 8 | 6.93 | 7 | 0.90 | ||
| FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services | 26 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 6.77 | 7 | 0.98 | ||||
| Symphony | 43 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 2 | 6 | 6.28 | 6 | 1.22 | |||
| Sierra | 74 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 11 | 16 | 17 | 11 | 1 | 7 | 5.68 | 6 | 0.93 | ||
| All Responses | 730 | 2 | 10 | 21 | 33 | 50 | 110 | 217 | 219 | 68 | 8 | 6.86 | 7 | 0.22 | |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
All Academic libraries: Effectiveness for print resources
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (2023)
| Print Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 23 | 1 | 3 | 19 | 9 | 8.70 | 9 | 1.88 | |||||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 99 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 30 | 37 | 21 | 8 | 7.57 | 8 | 0.90 | ||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 27 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 12 | 7 | 8 | 7.56 | 8 | 1.54 | ||||
| FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services | 26 | 7 | 5 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 7.50 | 8 | 1.18 | ||||||
| Alma | 335 | 9 | 15 | 31 | 105 | 135 | 40 | 8 | 7.38 | 8 | 0.49 | ||||
| Symphony | 43 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 16 | 13 | 5 | 7 | 7.16 | 7 | 1.37 | ||||
| Sierra | 73 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 20 | 27 | 9 | 8 | 7.05 | 7 | 0.94 | ||
| All Responses | 728 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 17 | 29 | 60 | 202 | 269 | 142 | 8 | 7.47 | 8 | 0.26 | |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
All Academic libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (2023)
| Electronic Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 23 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 16 | 1 | 8 | 7.30 | 8 | 1.67 | |||||
| FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services | 26 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 7.04 | 7 | 0.98 | |||||
| Alma | 335 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 21 | 58 | 95 | 120 | 26 | 8 | 7.04 | 7 | 0.49 |
| WorldShare Management Services | 100 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 11 | 16 | 30 | 24 | 12 | 7 | 6.81 | 7 | 0.90 | ||
| Symphony | 42 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 5.38 | 6 | 1.39 |
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 27 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 8 | 5.00 | 5 | 0.38 |
| Sierra | 73 | 6 | 4 | 16 | 13 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 2 | 3.78 | 3 | 0.70 | |
| All Responses | 726 | 21 | 12 | 34 | 39 | 30 | 60 | 113 | 167 | 199 | 51 | 8 | 6.22 | 7 | 0.19 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
All Academic libraries: Satisfaction with customer support
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (2023)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS Support | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 23 | 1 | 5 | 17 | 9 | 8.70 | 9 | 1.88 | |||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 28 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 11 | 9 | 7.50 | 8 | 1.32 | ||||
| Symphony | 43 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 8 | 13 | 13 | 8 | 7.35 | 8 | 1.37 | |||
| FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services | 26 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 7.19 | 8 | 0.59 | ||||
| WorldShare Management Services | 99 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 12 | 30 | 21 | 25 | 7 | 7.18 | 7 | 0.90 | |
| Alma | 334 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 12 | 31 | 40 | 62 | 98 | 60 | 16 | 7 | 6.16 | 7 | 0.49 |
| Sierra | 73 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 16 | 11 | 6 | 7 | 5.68 | 6 | 1.05 | |
| All Responses | 723 | 6 | 9 | 16 | 23 | 48 | 63 | 103 | 181 | 147 | 127 | 7 | 6.67 | 7 | 0.19 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
All Academic libraries: Company Loyalty
Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (2023)
| Loyalty to Company Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 22 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 15 | 9 | 8.55 | 9 | 1.92 | ||||||
| Koha -- ByWater Solutions | 28 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 7.71 | 8 | 1.32 | ||||
| FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services | 25 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 7.28 | 8 | 0.80 | |||
| Alma | 329 | 8 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 12 | 32 | 31 | 84 | 100 | 51 | 8 | 6.89 | 7 | 0.50 |
| WorldShare Management Services | 100 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 11 | 9 | 23 | 19 | 26 | 9 | 6.77 | 7 | 0.90 |
| Symphony | 42 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 11 | 2 | 13 | 9 | 6.40 | 7 | 1.39 | ||
| Sierra | 74 | 6 | 3 | 11 | 2 | 7 | 12 | 8 | 11 | 4 | 10 | 5 | 4.95 | 5 | 1.05 |
| All Responses | 719 | 25 | 6 | 23 | 16 | 28 | 67 | 68 | 151 | 170 | 165 | 8 | 6.76 | 7 | 0.19 |
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
School Libraries
School libraries: General ILS Satisfaction
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: School) (2023)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 173 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 158 | 9 | 8.90 | 9 | 0.68 | ||||||
| Destiny | 20 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 7.95 | 8 | 2.01 | ||||||
| All Responses | 214 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 11 | 25 | 171 | 9 | 8.64 | 9 | 0.62 | ||||
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
School libraries: Overall ILS Functionality
Statistics related to the question: (Library Type: School) (2023)
| Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 174 | 1 | 1 | 44 | 128 | 9 | 8.72 | 9 | 0.68 | ||||||
| Destiny | 20 | 1 | 5 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 7.90 | 8 | 2.01 | ||||||
| All Responses | 215 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 9 | 58 | 140 | 9 | 8.49 | 9 | 0.61 | |||
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
School libraries: Effectiveness for print resources
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: School) (2023)
| Print Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 174 | 3 | 5 | 166 | 9 | 8.94 | 9 | 0.68 | |||||||
| Destiny | 20 | 1 | 8 | 11 | 9 | 8.35 | 9 | 2.01 | |||||||
| All Responses | 215 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 20 | 187 | 9 | 8.80 | 9 | 0.61 | ||||
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
School libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources
Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: School) (2023)
| Electronic Functionality Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 152 | 1 | 19 | 85 | 47 | 8 | 8.16 | 8 | 0.65 | ||||||
| Destiny | 18 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 9 | 7.44 | 8 | 2.12 | ||||
| All Responses | 191 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 27 | 92 | 58 | 8 | 7.88 | 8 | 0.58 | ||
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
School libraries: Satisfaction with customer support
Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: School) (2023)
| Satisfaction Score for ILS Support | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 172 | 20 | 152 | 9 | 8.88 | 9 | 0.69 | ||||||||
| Destiny | 20 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8.35 | 8 | 2.01 | |||||||
| All Responses | 212 | 1 | 7 | 35 | 169 | 9 | 8.74 | 9 | 0.62 | ||||||
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
School libraries: Company Loyalty
Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: School) (2023)
| Loyalty to Company Score | Response Distribution | Statistics | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median | Std Dev |
| OPALS | 171 | 1 | 18 | 152 | 9 | 8.88 | 9 | 0.69 | |||||||
| Destiny | 20 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 7.50 | 8 | 0.00 | ||||
| All Responses | 211 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 32 | 164 | 9 | 8.53 | 9 | 0.62 | ||
Threshold: 15. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.
View report with these selections across multiple years
An interactive version of the statistical reports, is available which includes the ability to view the responses for each of the ILS products, along with the redacted comments.
ILS Turnover Reports
Another set of reports provide information on the ILS products that were selected during $surveyyear by libraries registered in libraries.org. [Note: these numbers are not comprehensive.]
The ILS Turn-over report counts and lists the automation systems recorded as selected or installed in $surveyyear with a breakdown of the previous systems displaced.
The Reverse ILS Turn-over report. counts and lists the automation systems recorded as replaced in $surveyyear with a breakdown of the new systems that were selected
Details about The Survey
The survey instrument included five numerical ratings, three yes/no responses, and two short response fields, and a text field for general comments. The numeric rating fields allow responses from 0 through 9. Each scale was labeled to indicate the meaning of the numeric selection.
Four of the numeric questions probe at the level of satisfaction with and loyalty to the company or organization that provides its current automation system:
- How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System?
- How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library?
- How satisfied is the library overall with the company from which you purchased your current ILS?
- Has the customer support for this ILS gotten better or gotten worse in the last year?
- How satisfied is this library with this company’s customer support services?
- How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company?
A yes/no question asks whether the library is considering migrating to a new ILS and a fill-in text field provides the opportunity to provide specific systems under consideration. Another yes/no question asks whether the automation system currently in use was installed on schedule.
Given the recent interest in new search interfaces, a yes/no question asks “Is the library currently considering a search interface for its collection that is separate from the ILS?” and a fill-in form to indicate products under consideration.
The survey includes two questions that aim to gauge interest in open source ILS, a numerical rating that asks “How likely is it that this library would consider implementing and open source ILS?” and a fill-in text field for indicating products under consideration.
The survey concludes with a text box inviting comments.
View the survey. (This version of the survey does not accept or record response data.)
In order to correlate the responses with particular automation systems and companies, the survey links to entries in the libraries.org directory of libraries. Each entry in libraries.org indicates the automation system currently in use as well as data on the type of library, location, collection size, and other factors that might be of potential interest. In order to fill out the survey, the responder had first to find their library in libraries.org and then press a button that launched the response form. Some potential respondents indicated that found this process complex.
The link between the libraries.org entry and the survey automatically populated fields for the library name and current automation system and provided access to other data elements about the library as needed. The report on survey response demographics, for example, relies on data from libraries.org.
A number of methods were used to solicit responses to the survey. E-mail messages were sent to library-oriented mailing lists such as WEB4LIB and PUBLIB. Invitational messages were also sent to many lists for specific automation systems and companies. Where contact information was available in libraries.org, and automated script produced e-mail messages with a direct link to the survey response form for that library.
The survey attempted to limit responses to one per library. This restriction was imposed to attempt to sway the respondents to reflect the broad perceptions of their institution rather than their personal opinions.
The survey instrument was created using the same infrastructure as the Library Technology Guides web site—a custom interface written in perl using MySQL to store the data, with ODBC as the connection layer. Access to the raw responses is controlled through a user name and password available only to the author. Scripts were written to provide public access to the survey in a way that does not expose individual responses.
In order to provide access to the comments without violating the stated agreement not to attribute individual responses to any given institution or individual, an addition field was created for “edited comments.” This field was manually populated with text selected from the “comments” text provided by the respondent. Any information that might identify the individual or library was edited out, with an ellipse indicating the removed text. Comments that only explained a response or described the circumstances of the library were not transferred to the Edited Comments field.
Statistics
To analyze the results, a few scripts were written to summarize, analyze, and present the responses.
In order to avoid making generalizations based on inadequate sample sizes, the processing scripts included a threshold variable that would only present results when the number of responses exceeded the specified value. The threshold was set to a value of 10.
For each of the survey questions that involve a numeric rating, a set of subroutines was created to calculate and display simple statistics.
- Responses indicates the number of survey responses that made a selection for this question.
- A Response Distribution array lists the number of responses for each possible value from 0-9.
- The Mode indicates the numeric response that received the most selections.
- The Mean is the average response, calculated by adding together all the responses and dividing by the Responses value, rounding to two significant decimal places.
- The Median is the middle response, calculated by placing each of the responses in a sorted array and selecting the middle value.
- The Standard Deviation was calculated by subtracting each response value from the mean, squaring the difference, summing the squares and dividing by the number of responses to determine the variance. The standard deviation is the square root of the variance.
The "survey-report-by-category.pl" script processes each of the numerical ratings, displaying each of the statistical components listed above for each product that received responses above the threshold value. This report provides a convenient way to compare the performance of each ILS product for the selected question. The report sorts the statistics for each product in descending order of the mean. The report categories available correspond to the survey questions with numerical scale responses.
The “survey-product-report.pl” script provides the results for each of the ILS products mentioned in the responses. This report also provides the statistical components for each of the numeric question. It also provides the percentage of yes responses to the two yes/no questions:
- Is this library currently considering migrating to a new ILS?
- Is this library currently considering acquiring a search interface for its collection that is separate from the ILS? The report then lists the “EditedComments” text.
[The text of this section mostly replicates what appeared in the 2007 version of this article. For for both editions of the survey I followed the same methodology for collection and and statistical analysis.]
Caveat
As noted with previous editions of the survey, libraries evaluating products should not read too much into the survey results. Individuals responding to the survey provide their subjective impressions to fairly general questions. Although the survey instructions encourage responders to consider the broader institutional perceptions, it’s usually the case that multiple opinions prevail within any given library. Although the survey attempts to provide useful information about the experiences of libraries with their current integrated library systems and the organizations that provide support, it should not be used as a definitive assessment tool.
views: 6718
