This page lists the narrative of comments given by individuals responding to the 2023 library automation perceptions survey. Comments have been redacted to remove content that identifies the indivudual or institution. To place the comments in perspective, the library type, size of collection, and the rating given for overall ILS satisfaction is provided.
There were 517 narrative comments given regarding 48 different products:
We have been a customer of Accessit software from Follett for under a year. I am still on a learning curve on some of the more complex matters but daily use with students, volunteers and myself, are just great! It was also less expensive than our previous vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
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. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are currently in the process of migrating from Aleph to Alma/Primo VE. We are pleased with the way the technical side of the migration is being handled. All deliverables are on schedule. We are less than pleased with the quality of the preliminary training from the vendor. Plans are being drafted to handle training on the consortial/campus level. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)
We have already selected Alma/Primo and are in the process of migrating to it, scheduled for May 2023. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
After considering Folia and Alma, we signed a contract for Alma and are in the process of an Aleph -> Alma migration that we hope to complete on 6/5/2024. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
We are targeting this spring to issue an RFP (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)
The [...] is starting a new Programme to procure and implement a cloud-based Library Services Platform to replace Aleph in the next few years. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
A nivel de Jefatura interna (Director Biblioteca y Jefa bibliotecaria) y externa (oficialidad Escuela Militar, Corporación) durante algunos meses se estudió la posibilidad de migrar a ALMA y crear un Sistema de Bibliotecas, integrando las cuatro o cinco Bibliotecas de escuelas matrices más importantes dentro de la institución, siendo liderado el sistema por esta Biblioteca. Por distintas consideraciones, entre ellas la relación costo/producto, nivel de usuario/demanda, financiamiento/suscripción anual, se ha decidido en este momento seguir con ALEPH, revalorando la gestión del software integrado y priorizar el financiamiento para otras áreas de la Biblioteca, de mayor urgencia. En cambio, se mantiene un interés por incorporar próximamente algún servicio de descubrimiento. (Library type: Military; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Strategic decision to implement FOLIO 2025. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
The state consortium make the decision for us. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
While we are happy with our switch to Alma/Primo VE, as a small library that has had a lot of turnover in the last several years, it is taking us an extensive amount of time to fully incorporate the many tools and features offered in the platforms. Our small size makes it difficult to make time for reevaluating all of our workflows to take better advantage of the system. I sometimes wonder if a simpler platform, that didn't have to also account for the needs of huge, multi-site library systems, would have been more manageable for us. In addition, the size of Ex Libris and the extent of clients and platforms they have to manage makes changes and support take longer as well. Simple fixes have to wait until a later rollout. This can be frustrating. Overall, we are happy, but we are also still overwhelmed with what we could be doing versus what we can realistically do with our limited staffing. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We tend to be vendor neutral and think of levels of satisfaction in the binary. That is to say they are more like 'yes' 'no' answers than a scale of satisfaction. Either it gets the job done or it doesn't. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Note: The decision to move to EBSCO Folio has been by the consortia but won't take place until 2025. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Ex Libris has become so large that I don't know if there is any way it can truly meet all the needs of its users. They do continue to develop new features, but sometimes these may benefit others, but be problematic for us. Their customer service has gone through various changes since I've worked with them (2020) but there are still sometimes great lags in getting tickets addressed, sometimes simply because the initial tech doesn't understand the issue. The enhancement process has become nearly useless, and I believe they are looking at ways to improve the situation, but I don't think they have a solution yet. There are benefits to sharing an ILS/Discovery System with so many other libraries, however! The User group is a tremendous resource, for instance. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Substantially reduced print holdings due to space loss. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Now that the Library of Congress has decided on FOLIO we expect the development work to increase and therefore make the product more viable (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Approximate number of items in the library's collection is print resources only (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are considering an open source system for our Archives. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are satisfied with the system and level of support received from the vendor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Ex Libris are very conscientious about their customers and if needed it is relatively easy to be put in contact with senior representatives of the company. They take an interest in the developments of the library service and discuss ways their ILS might provide solutions. They actively participate in organsied user groups, attending conferences and meetings as well as holding their own annual conference that provides a wealth of knowledge and insight. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We just implemented Alma in August 2023. Lots of pros but way too many cons to be really happy with it. Our implementation was lacking and disappointing. We continue to have daily struggles with getting basic tasks done. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Crucial functions that are needed to operate the system are basically documented on a wish list and the user community as a whole has to vote on what will be pushed forward or implemented. This makes it difficult to have a functional, modern system when the necessary functionality is not automatically approved to be worked on or improved. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Small staff, would need support to be able to use open source (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Vendor support is slow in responding to tickets, and then the response is often just a link to their help pages. It would be nice to have personalized support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We lack the resources and expertise to support and configure an open-source product. The University has embraced the SaaS model and most enterprise systems are SaaS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Library is likely to be part of a consortial tender in coming years, have been doing market research this year. For us as an individual Library we are on the whole very happy with our Ex Libris products and would not be looking to re-procure were it not for the need to re-visit the market after many years. Based on demos so far we were not particularly impressed with Koha or WMS, (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We migrated from Sierra, June 2023, to Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
If we weren't happily a part of the Orbis Cascade Alliance, the consortium we get our ILS through, I would advocate strongly that our little university move to Koha and host it ourselves. The benefits of being part of our current consortium far outweighs our struggles with Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We lack the resources and expertise to support and configure an open-source product. The University has embraced the SaaS model and most enterprise systems are SaaS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Although we support the concept of open source, we're not in a position to undertake an open source ILS solution on our own. We are part of a consortium with a shared ILS, however, and so we would do as they decided if they ever chose to move to an open source option. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Migrated from Voyager to Alma, spring 2023. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Alma / Primo software is good, but Ex Libris support is disappointing and doesn't live up to expectations. We often exchange information via the French users' club (ACEF), and colleagues help us solve problems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Migration went okay this year, but some of the trainers were not great. The documentation is confusing, but resources are available to help explain and customer service is prompt and reliable. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Having ELUNA is a great asset for Ex Libris but there should be more development points assigned to the products. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our local support from the consortium office is good, but problems that need to involve the vendor take a long time to be fixed, and are often not resolved at all. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
You cannot consider migrating to another ILS without considering which discovery system you can use, and there the options are very few. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We like the level of system development and engagement with our current vendor and its user community. There are few options for an organization of our size and complexity. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
As a small library it's hard to think about having an open source ILS considering we have no inhouse developers. I feel like you need to be really small and budget strapped or really large to truly take advantage. That said, if there was ever something that meet our needs and was something we could take on without too much effort--we would definitely consider it. (Library type: Art; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
I couldn't answer yes or no to the are we considering migrating to a new system. We are approaching end of contract and our funding/legal arrangements mean we are likely to have to go out to tender. Whilst the result of a tender may mean we migrate, it's also possible our existing vendor could win the contract, in which case obviously no migration. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Ex Libris never developed documentation well enough (and want paid for training outside of migration), nor continued full development of Alma & Primo. Ex Libris branched out into too many side products, especially when bought out by ProQuest. Customer service was already getting worse by the time ProQuest purchased Ex Libris, and it's only gotten worse. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our biggest problem with Ex Libris is response time to issues, and the decisions to not fix issues if they don't seem "important enough" to Ex Libris. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We went live with Alma and Primo in January 2023. We implemented Alma Digital over the summer, went live for August 2023. We are currently implementing Rapido with a go live date of January 2024. We are in the early phases of assessing our workflows and customizing the system to better serve back-end and front-end users. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Open source software like Folio is intriguing but we don't have enough staff to maintain it without paying a vendor for support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We would be interested in an open source ILS but currently do not have the staff to support that, and our current ILS comes to us through a contract with our state consortium, which also provides support for the product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Ex Libris is stronger with maintaining electronic and digital resources, overall, than physical. Ex Libris's circulation module is probably the weakest, overall, that I have implemented in a 40 year library career. However, in the Acquisitions and Cataloging realms, Ex Libris is quite strong. Their Primo (public access) software is good, but there are many aspects for improvement. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The backend of Alma is a pain in the butt to use with numerous steps for everything and generous opportunities for things to go wrong. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
Who know what the future holds with consolidation of all Polytechnics, and some other work-based training providers, in to [...]. Will there be one ILMS to rule them all. We just do not know. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] Library use [...] ILS and discovery system as part of our relationship with Durham University. Alma is significantly better than its outdated predecessor (Millennium). The migration is recent so it is likely that the product will be further refined and developed. Alma works well for circulation once you get used to the terminology. I am not convinced that it is well set up for the complexities of cataloguing rare books and special collections despite the many specialist libraries that use it. There was a lot of discussion about this during implementation however we have not yet made extensive use of this facility due to staff capacity so I cannot say for definite. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We went live with Alma in 2020 and we are part of a large consortia. Decisions about migration are made at the consortia level because we need a system that has strong support for lending and borrowing between consortia libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
While the possibility of an Open Source product is attractive, we currently don't have the staffing to maintain such a system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We find Alma/Primo very difficult to generate usage reports from and clunky to use for daily tasks such as cataloging. The catalog is clogged with thousands of 'Ebsco e-books' that we do not have access to, yet are unable to delete from our system except for one by one with a partial record still remaining, and A/P tech support has been unable to help. I can't stand this system. I would be happy to migrate to an open source product as long as it was of professional quality and tech support was robust. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
I answered Folio in the "Open source considerations" question, but to be clear we are not looking for another ILS presently. I think the most criticism our staff and faculty have of Alma come from the fact that it is new to them. Switching would not change that. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
The current contract with our ILS vendor is due for renewal in 2026 therefore in the next 12-18 months we will start to review our options and business requirements. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Although our library is in favor of open source products philosophically, we do not have the staffing resources to implement or maintain an open source system. Any move toward an open source ILS would require us to seek a hosted option. Regarding the question "would the library consider working with this company again..." - My thought was, we would consider it and probably work with them, but we wouldn't be very happy about it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Number of items is the number of physical items. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are currently getting ready to re-up our contract for the first of two two-year optional renewals. Our primary areas of concern to discuss with Ex Libris during this negotiation process include poor customer service and documentation, use of "named users" (log-ins) as a pricing mechanism is prohibitively expensive if we are to comply with University of California systems security protocols (no shared log-ins allowed), and a lack of support for consortial needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Because we're part of a consortium sharing an ILS, we actually don't have much individual agency in making ILS selections and changes. If it were just up to us as an individual institution, I would be very interested in changing to an open source ILS/platform, and my institution would support that. But, because we're part of a consortium that just renewed its contract with Ex Libris for another 5 years, we won't actually be making any changes. That's why I said "0-Not Likely" to the Open Source implementation question. My personal feeling is more like a 10, but that's irrelevant to reality. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
We are relatively off an ILS migration, so people are still smarting from the transition. I think we are now experiencing the same sorts of complaints that were happening when we had Sierra, but people are all saying "we could do that in Sierra and we can't do it in Alma!" and I think they are longing for the days of the devil they knew. I am hopeful that we will soon be past that. Alma has its issues, but is so much more academic-library oriented and hugely complex, so of course involves a steep learning curve. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Contract is not up until 2030 but keeping an eye on FOLIO for sure; may do an RFI in 2025 (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
It would depend on the decision of the consortium and the cost associated if we were to move systems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
There is concern that Ex Libris will lose it distinctive identity and customer focus as a result of being taken over by Clarivate. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Alma is designed for very large academic libraries with multiple branches and oodles of departments with very regimented tasks. Our library is much smaller, with only one location, and a much more fluid work structure. This makes many of its processes feel very cumbersome, unnecessarily complex, and frustrating. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)
Alma as a product is extremely powerful, albeit arguably over-complicated. Ex Libris provides very poor support to the Asia-Pacific region, communicates poorly, and has appalling documentation. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We migrated to Alma in July 2023, so it is still new to us. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
There are limited options for other vendors to use for library services platforms when open source is not an option. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
As a DoD library, we are not permitted to consider an open source ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The software is overpowered for our smaller libraries (approx. 20+) and makes us consider whether we can continue to operate on one system or move to two. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
The software is overpowered for our smaller libraries (approx. 20+) and makes us consider whether we can continue to operate on one system or move to two. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
As part of the consortium of S[...] NY we don't do procurement for our own system, and we have been on Alma for 5 years and have a couple of extensions. Migrating a consortium of this size means we don't move often as it is very expensive with training etc... (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
In general, the relative consolidation of the LSP market is limiting choice and pushing prices up across their product range. Currently they have a good offering, however, support and its openness as it gets consolidated between the merged companies that are now under the Clarivate umbrella have declined. 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. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
For Open Source ILS software, we did consider these for our migration however the incompleteness of the products offered and lack of hard development targets for required functionality meant we could not go with these products at this time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
El producto ALMA/PRIMO es muy bueno, pero excesivamente complejo en muchos aspectos. Las necesidades de formación para poder explotarlo convenientemente son excesivas. Requiere dedicar un equipo muy amplio para poder utilizar todo su potencial. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
The tech support people we work with on specific projects can be fantastic but the general customer support is hit and miss (sometimes excellent sometimes awful). (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We already have plans to migrate to FOLIO as part of the [...] , by June 2025. This is a statewide decision. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
None so far. All good. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Folio could be of interest once it is ripe. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our library is part of the Swiss Library Service Platform (SLSP) and would have to coordinate a change of ILS provider in a lengthy and complicated process (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are making a prestudy because of the problematic legal situation with GDPR and the Swedish law Public access to information and secrecy and cloudservices/owner relationships. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
Most support tickets have a quick response, but some tickets take weeks to months before resolution. We understand that may be related to lack of urgency or case complexity. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Given the limited number of ILS providers whose products would meet our needs and our limited developer needs we would be unlikely to consider an open source solution or move from our current vendor. While we support open access and open source systems it is too great a challenge at this time. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Ex Libris has been working closely with the [..] to develop better ways of resource sharing and resource analysis. While there are still issues to work through, Ex Libris has become more responsive to customer feedback and adapting to changes requested from cusotmers. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
It was decided by Consortium to have Folio in 2025. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium)
ILS selection is managed at the state level. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The answer to the open source ILS question isn't a bias against open source generally, but is just based on staffing limitations and the options currently available in the market. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Re: Open Source products, while we like the idea of open source, the prospect of implementing and maintaining an open source product with limited staff makes such options less attractive and feasible. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Alma is set up for big institutions, with several libraries. We are a one campus, one library institution with a very small staff. it is hard to find documentation and workflows set up for minimal staff; several functions are handled by one person and we don't need to have elaborate workflows and status options. We are primarily involved in Alma because we are in a consortium and it was the consortium's choice of ILS. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
ExLibris support has been one of the toughest parts of using Alma/Primo VE. The people themselves are great, and if I am able to solve my problem with their chat functionality with a live person, it's fantastic. However, if it turns out to be a bigger issue that requires a ticket, response times are often so far between that the thread of the conversation is lost, or the person responding can't answer questions in laymen's terms and expects more knowledge than our small staff has. We knew that internal knowledge would be an issue adopting Alma/Primo, but we have no regrets doing so - other aspects of Alma/Primo have severely reduced the amount of time we spent on manual tasks in our old ILS and has all the functionality we need and then some. We would have preferred open source in the long run, but FOLIO was not robust enough at the time we needed to migrate. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Support for an open source ILS would be a major factor in this decision. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Ex Libris has good intentions, but after Clarivate bought it, the quality of support dropped significantly. I was against buying Alma in the first place because it has too many features and options for smaller institutions. As we joke, there really needs to be an Alma Lite that's toned down and/or preconfigured for easier institutional set up and maintenance. Us older folk also miss being able to schedule software updates, especially discovery layer changes, for our best time and not the vendor's. Thankfully, the community has successfully advocated for a return to feature-heavy quarterly releases to reduce the chaos of new features every month. Some of us also have concerns about a data broker knowing so much about eresource use, and then there's the issue of using something built by programmers with little knowledge of our well developed library science standards and tools. So, fingers crossed, we'll take the open source plunge soon. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We are not actually interested in migrating at this time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We'll be putting out an RFP when our current contract expires with this vendor. If they submit a bid, we'll be obliged to consider it. This doesn't mean we *want* to work with them again. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
The library is in process with migration from Sierra to Alma/Primo. We are still live on Sierra. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium)
We implemented Alma Digital and created two new repositories, one for Government of [...] publications and one for other digital publications. We upgraded to Primo VE which made implementing Alma Digital much more feasible. These things have elevated our satisfaction with ExLibris. Additionally, Clarivate has dramatically improved the speed and responsiveness of Support. This is also elevating our satisfaction rating this year. (Library type: Special; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
An open source system could only be considered on a consortial basis. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Alma y Primo han resultado software con una buena funcionalidad frente a las gestiones de biblioteca, particulamente de bibliotecas universitarias. Hay una funcionalidad asociada a la agrupación de los diferentes formatos en los que se encuentra un título (ferverización) que no funciona en su totalidad y es un plus por el cual se tomo la decición en nuestra universidad para esta suscripción, se sugiere tener en cuenta este aspecto. De cara a la atención de los soportes por parte del proveedor, se sugiere tener en cuenta que es fundamental trabajar con la documentación de las curvas de aprendizaje de las instituciones, sin embargo este no puede ser el mecanismo para que las mismas instituciones resulvan sus requerimientos, por ser software con pago, se sugiere que se acompañe de manera personal, la solición de los soportes y requerimientos; por este útimo aspecto en nuestro caso es que no se instalan software de código abierto, no tenemos capacidad para atención y desarrollos. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
There have been interface improvements, but it's still very clunky and not configuarble. (Library type: Law; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our university consortium [...] has made the decision to switch from ALMA to FOLIO, but we will not go live until June 2025. Until that time, we continue to work in Alma world. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our library is one of the large [...] consortium. This product is incredibly complex, and often does more than we need it to do. We are so small that we would not be able to consider an open source product without outside support and management. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
None of the ILS offerings are particularly exciting, nor do any completely satisfy all needs of the staff and users of library systems. All are underwhelming -- several off the shelf options outside libraryland do parts of what we want to do in impressive ways but none cover everything. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are in the process of migrating from SirsiDynix Symphony to Ex Libris Alma-Primo; hence that is why the earlier questions about vendor satisfaction and effectiveness are not germane at this time, and therefore I did not answer them, because we are transitioning to our new LSP, Ex Libris Alma-Primo. (Library type: ; collection size: very small)
I'm pretty "meh" overall about Ex Libris in general, but migration is such a hassle I don't know that we as an institution would consider doing it even though I would like to see us evaluate our options. Also, we're currently on the platform as part of a consortium contract, and migrating away from what the consortium as a whole decides to use seems highly improbable at this point. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our current ILS is almost a decade old and any thoughts of migration to a new system are considerations rather than plans. Fast forward to five years from now, we may more seriously consider an open source product. However, as part of a larger shared library system, those decisions would have to be made jointly. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are part of the [...] who is transitioning from Alma to FOLIO in 2025.I participated in some evaluation of the products the USG considered during the RFP process, and I am excited about moving to an open source ILS after learning more about them. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium)
Approximate number of items in the library's collection:' question is not clear whether this is physical or electronic items or both, so have not completed. Answer to open source considerations is based on state of open source offerings available today and our ability to support the development of an open source system, it does not indicate a dislike of open source systems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I updated our inventory number to include physical and E. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
I wish it were likely that we would choose an open source ILS but the perceptions of the upper administrators get in the way, even though they have largely proven erroneous. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
An open source ILS would require multi-library patron driven acquisition like the Flex-Share system of Apollo. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
I would absolutely consider implementing an open source project such as Koha, EXCEPT for the fact that we are very satisified with our current vendor, both in terms of functionality and price. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are, overall, pleased with Apollo. The company is small and still has the feeling of a startup, but they are also very responsive and flexible. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We love APOLLO by Biblionix! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] library no longer has an ebook service for patrons, but when we did the software handled it well. (Library type: Other; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Apollo has been a great product for us while we were a small library with only one branch. We have added outreach functions though, including lockers and an outreach collection as well as a Library of Things and Apollo isn't as functional in these areas. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
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. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Some aspects of Atriuum are just tough to work with: reports are confusing, cataloging could be greatly streamlined, the staff interface for circulation should be more customizable. Follett Destiny was a wonderful piece of software but it was intended for school libraries. Many vendors would not work with us because we were so small so we had a limited pool of choices. Open Source seemed like it would need a person dedicated to maintaining it and we don't have the resources for that. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The level of tech support has degraded in the past year or so. Longer wait times, less resolution of issues arising from need to increase security of systems overall. Still a fan, just a little disappointed with inability to resolve printer issues. . (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Very Happy with what we use now , great support, great product. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Also uses Syndetics Unbound (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We currently do not have any digitally owned items, therefore Booksystems does not assist us with this. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The [...] is an online library with no print materials. We no longer have an ILS. (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 0)
Atriuum has been a fabulous vendor for our ILS system. When support is needed, it is quick and reliable. A very personable company that values relationship building with the customer. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The only issue I have with Booksystems Atrium is the outward facing product. Our OPAC (Online Catalog) is sort of outdated looking, it would be nice if it looked a little more 21st century. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Library system just migrated to Atrium from Evergreen/Equinox. We just went through the process of reviewing other ILS systems including an open-source ILS (Koho). Our go live with Atrium was December 1, 2023. Review answers are based on Customer service, training and staff's current feedback. There are some quirks with the consortia using a single catalog rather than each library having its own catalog. There are some quirks with the system originally being a school library ILS. For being with the system for less than 3 months we are still adjusting but so far much better platform for staff. Catalog interface has been well received by our library patrons. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Käytössämme on tällä hetkellä yhtä aikaa Axiell Aurora Silver ja Gold. Ensisijaisesti pitäisi käyttää Goldia, mutta sen toistuvien ongelmien vuoksi käytämme säännöllisesti Silveriä. Silver toimii aivan hyvin, mutta sen tietoturvassa on haavoittuvuuksia. Gold taas ei toimi kuten pitäisi ja on erityisesti hidas. Tilanteen hankaluuden ja sekavuuden vuoksi kirjastokimppa suunnittelee järjestelmän vaihtoa lähitulevaisuudessa, mutta mikään nykyisistä mahdollisista järjestelmistä ei ole ongelmaton. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Library system will undergo evaluation in 2024. No vendors selected yet., althout last time it was LibLime, Innovative, and SirsiDynix (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Bibliovation is a robust tool but dealing with a cloud-based environment deprives the user from adding functionality other than client-side enhancements/customizations. The cataloging module, and managing electronic resources need some heavy lifting. Having a sandbox option is a big bonus unique to what PTFS offers, in comparison to other ILS vendors. More improvements and offerings would be very welcome. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Current ILS was renewed trough a public procurement process 2023. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Re: electronic resources: [...] works with a philosophy of keeping our electronic resources out of the ILS; instead we rely on our discovery layer (Aspen Discovery) to connect our patrons to our various online collections (OverDrive, Hoopla, Odilo, Kanopy, ComicsPlus, and others) (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The school district does not work directly with TLC to handle issues with CARL X. The school system support comes directly from [...]. They do a wonderful job to help make CARL X as user friendly for school librarians as possible. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)
We go through our consortium and would likely follow their recommendations for an ILS change. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are very happy with the way that the ILS performs for our institution. The desktop application is wonderful but our Council wants to move to a fully web-based interface. At this point in time, there are too many gaps to allow this migration. We look forward to further developments of this product to address these gaps. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are on a very old version of DB/Textworks which may affect our experience. We have no current support agreement in place. We only use DB/Textworks for our print collection, we don't use if for our electronic collection at all. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 0)
We have been with Follett for over 25 years through out ISD Consortium. We have been happy with support of the library system although the Resource (Technology) piece of the is sometimes difficult to navigate, in particular the Report piece of the program. It is very difficult to get the results we are looking for. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] is satisfied with Follett's Destiny because the software meets the district's needs and offers various features that enhance their educational experience. Destiny provides a user-friendly interface for teachers, students, and administrators to manage and access educational resources, such as library books and textbooks. It also allows the district to track inventory, manage circulation, and generate reports, making it easier to monitor and allocate resources effectively. Destiny's integration with other learning management systems and its ability to support remote learning has further contributed to the satisfaction of [...]. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
It's a clunky system that is not intuitive and takes a while to learn. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our currently system is selfish. Meaning keeping your items only locally. It's okay if you don't want to share your information with other systems. This library is a public library inside a school and also uses MelCat. It would be awesome if it communicated with the MelCat Innovative Millennium. Opening up items for over 400 libraries in the State of Michigan. The other huge disappointment is that I can not get a simple fast report on how many items in our collection by material type. I have to file and complete a state aid report every year that asks this question. I have to personally go through each material type select delete to get the number of each material type the library has and then hit no. If I was to accidently hit yes it could delete every item in that material type. Very risky. This should be a simple and easy report that should only take a few minutes. Instead I have to hand write each number for each material type taking longer than it should. I would think other libraries would appreciate knowing this information. It would also help to find areas that might be lacking in books. Having MelCat available has open the library up beyond it's four walls and budget. Grant you this library is part of MelCat, but it also is double the work. I have to check items out on this system and then recheck them out on the MelCat system. Being staff by only one person with limited hours anything to help save time would be great. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
Also use Folio ERM (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Group purchase, no choice. (Library type: Military; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Overall, we are very satisfied with the both Evergreen ILS and Equinox (server host). The ILS is always improving and Equinox is very responsive and (usually) tenacious when trouble-shooting. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We anticipate migrating to Apollo by Biblionix in March 2023. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our electronic resources are through District and State sources, so the question about management of electronic resources is not applicable. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
The previous years number of items may not reflect historical "special" collections, and some digital resources. This number reflects those items now. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The report area is not user friendly. It is very difficult to run a report without vendor guidance. There is constant problems with keeping logged in and encountering a blank screen or glitches. The administration area is very difficult to use. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
The reports module is difficult to understand for beginners. I have used it for years and attended trainings so I am better at it now. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Regarding: "How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources?" Evergreen does not manage our electronic resources. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The support service we receive for Evergreen-Equinox comes from PaILS (SPARK). The staff at PaILS are very helpful and go above and beyond to help train staff on the ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have 76 member libraries (65 are currently active and online the remaining 11 will be migrating to the shared system in the next 6 months). We are looking to create an "ASPEN" Discovery Layer environment in the coming year to help with the management of online resources. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
The software is great. The resources shared are great. The companies involved in making the integration happen physically are failing. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our consortium has used Evergreen since 2011. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our vendor is very affordable for us, as an all volunteer entity, which has its drawbacks as well as its benefits. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Reports are tricky - and none came automatically set up, Some permissions don't make sense and have limited our abilities, The search function is limited, filtering false, and the whole system prone to sudden slowness/non-responsiveness. Electronic resources come up first in the search, not last. Everyone reminisces about Polaris - it's functionality and ease of use. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 3)
Implementation of Aspen discovery layer scheduled for March 4, 2024. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
FOLIO is an open source system. We are using EBSCP as our service provider for FOLIO. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
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. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have been live on FOLIO -- EBSCO since June 2023. We have only been interested in open source systems with complete vendor support, including implementation, maintenance, and hosting. We were also strongly considering Koha -- Bywater, and we continue to recommend that alongside FOLIO -- EBSCO. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are currently using Sierra but in the process of migrating to Folio (we are a part of the MOBIUS consortium and migrating with them). We have not switched yet and plan to go live in Spring 2024. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are self hosting FOLIO and do not use any vendor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are in the process of migrating all of our libraries to FOLIO, so we have already chosen an open source option. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
This question has a problem for an open source system like FOLIO, Evergreen, or Koha: Where does this library direct most of its ILS support issues? For libraries who direct problem reports to their open source project/community, this survey really doesn't have an appropriate answer. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are already on an open source LSP, FOLIO! Not clear how to respond. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are currently in the process of renewing our (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
We have just begun the process of migrating from Horizon to Library.Solution for our ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We will migrate our system to Polaris and Vega in 2024. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Horizon works overall despite its age except for with electronic resources. Horizon is based around items; electronic resources don't have items attached to them, so a lot of the reports are useless. Horizon sells and supposedly supports NCIP but they do a really poor job of it. Almost every time we do an upgrade, NCIP breaks, and it can be months before SirsiDynix fixes it. I wish there were more ILS/LSP options for public libraries. It feels like we are trapped in Horizon because there's nothing out there worth the time and effort of a migration right now. For this survey, I see you only want info about discovery software if we are an academic library. I would find that information useful for public libraries too (for next year's survey maybe)? I would love to know what other public libraries are using for this. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our consortium just signed a 5 year contract with SirsiDynix for Horizon. They are really pushing their BlueCloud Analytics which we are not taking advantage of. As the " poor step child" of our 2 member consortium, we defer a lot to the IT department of the other consortium member, My main complaint with Horizon is its reporting function. Not intuitive at all and you need to know SQL to do almost everything. Customer support is good, and most of the time our account rep will just run a report and send it to me. Hence, I never really learn how to do it and forget from year to year. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Migration to a new ILS is in its long-term planning phase at the moment. Considerations include cost, functionality, ease of use, as well as ease of migration. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
BLUEcloud Visibility has always been glitchy and currently has been down for over a month due to delayed completion of a vendor upgrade. SirsiDynix Visibility did not prove useful to us for managing our digital images. eResource Central is helpful, but staff must learn that eBooks are not listed in the Horizon ILS, only in the public catalog, which is not intuitive. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are looking at open source for several other areas of library services, like public computer access, makerspace, etc. not necessarily our ILS at this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We balance frustrations with our current ILS and/or ILS vendor against the immense weight of staff training and transition time that would be needed should we choose to migrate to another ILS; the frustrations always emerge victorious; we are a change and risk averse organization and sticking with what works, regardless of frustrations and limitations, is par for the course (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are in the process of migrating to a new ILS and will have switched from Horizon to Polaris next year. We seriously considered Koha provided by Bywater Solutions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Have changed LMS very recently, data migration commenced at the end of September. Previous system was Sirsi Dynix. Extremely happy to be no longer using that system. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Insignia is not user friendly. It is not designed for K-12 schools like Follett Destiny is. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)
Fairly new to this system. Biggest issues that I am most interested in : I don't have the ability to import records directly from OCLC myself; I would catalog more if I could. I now collect MARC records and they import them for me. System is straight forward. I don't use the periodicals very much as yet. Also they introduced a new contracts tab to keep track of library contracts recently. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The most possible development is that we will follow the choices of the National Library. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We migrated to Koha/EDS last spring. So far so good! (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Since 2019 we have implemented the koha open source system (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] University Library is a former Symphony customer. When we were using Symphony we had some operational issues and decided to change the ILS and started to use the open-source platform KOHA in 2020. We still have some problems but KOHA is more reasonable for [...] Library. (Library type: Art; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We went live with Koha, hosted by ByWater, in June 2022. Previously we used SirsiDynix. We have been very happy and appreciate the ease of use and good customer service for both Koha and ByWater. Yay for open access! (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
ByWater Solutions is easy to work with and responsive. Recommend Koha for ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
It would be nice to register for tutorials and have them be available/sent via a video - many of us work part time, and while the tutelage has been excellent, it is difficult to be present for these tutorials based on when they are being presented. I had registered for a course and expected a follow up video to be sent and none were, which was disappointing. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
ByWater Solutions provides a hosting and excellent support level. Koha ILS is amazing and highly customizable with a great community behind it. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We migrated from Sierra to Koha six months ago. While Koha is less robust than Sierra, we are learning tweaks/customizations every day. It's very possible that next year's numbers will be more favorable towards Koha. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are very pleased with ByWater Solutions and their support. Their customer service is good, and response time to queries also good (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The customer service is a lacking, in my opinion. When an issue is communicated, the solution isn't always done. Instead, they'll tell you what you can do on your end to fix it. We don't always know how to do that stuff and it would be nice if "support" just fixed it instead of giving me a homework assignment I might end up spending half the day on. Especially when it would haven taken them 5 minutes. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Extremely satisfied with the Koha Open Source ILS and Aspen Open Source discovery layer. It empowers us to have more control and customization while also enjoying the benefits of tech support and hosting from ByWater Solutions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
The team at ByWater Solutions has been very responsive in addressing any questions or issues that we have had with Koha. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The use of Koha ILS, Aspen Discovery, and Metabase with vendor support from ByWater Solutions is the complete library system platform. The Koha community is a wonderful group helping innovate and keep koha being a future thinking ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our library is largely for internal use, so our open source needs are fairly limited at this time. Overall, we have been very satisfied with product support and the features that we need, though some batch functions remain only achievable by the support team. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
In my opinion, Koha was not vetted thoroughly enough by our ILS committee before we committed to this switch. I'm fairly sure the committee would disagree. Koha is not well-suited to our consortium's configurations. My understanding is that it works better for standalone libraries and educational institutions. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
Currently using Koha from Bywater. We are satisfied with the Koha, but now overwhelmed. It gets the job done and the price it right. We would consider FOLIO hosted by Bywater or EBSCO at a reasonable price. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I want my reliable easily understood card catalogue system back. I works great when the power is out which it frequently is here. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
We belong to a consortium and they make the decisions for us. We would vote on it as a group rather than make our own decision. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Koha seems to be an effective ILS for public libraries but not for an academic library. Because our academic library shares the server instance of Koha with ByWater, the Global Preference choices are limiting when working with 2 different types of libraries on the same server. Simply put the open source aspect of Koha has many limitations. Also, it is frustrating that when a bug is identified, it takes months and years to address the bug. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
We migrated to Bywater-koha in 2023. While some of the modules are lacking for what we need, and set up of some of the services was borderline nightmare-ish, the level of customization and ability to innovate/get involved with the community is exactly what we were looking for. Koha (and open source) allows for the library to seek and implement the solutions to their own problems. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We currently use the open-source ILS Koha. We are currently hosted and supported by ByWater Solutions. We have found them to be very responsive and helpful. The library is very pleased with ByWater Solutions and plans to continue our relationship in the foreseeable future. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
I wish the reports were more robust at the user level (can ask support to write sql reports, but would like to be able to do more myself). (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I rated the following two questions based on having Aspen Discovery with Koha. How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the overall needs of this library? How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? If it were for Koha, only the rating would be 7 for the first question and 6 for the second question. In my opinion, Aspen is simply a far better patron "catalog" than Koha. This is based on a fairly modified Koha implementation had up until February 2023, when we implemented Aspen. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our consortia loves working with ByWater Solutions. The open source community surrounding Koha and Aspen Discovery are wonderful and collaborative environments and ByWater is integral into those communities, in addition to the support they provide us. I look forward to working closely with ByWater indefinitely and continuing to provide our member libraries a top notch experience, at a reasonable price. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our current ILS is open source. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We're very happy with Koha. It does most of what we need - it's very flexible and we're able to customize it. It is continuously being improved with two updates per year and monthly bugfixes. We don't feel like we are stuck in place without any progress the way we did with our proprietary ILS. The Koha community is great - everyone is so willing to share ideas and solutions to problems. ByWater customer support is excellent. They are responsive, provide frequent training and you can tell how excited the people are about Koha, open source and libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
This is all new to me and I am still learning. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
ByWater Solutions' support, while continually far better than other vendors we've worked with, has dipped in quality this last year. There is a major need for Acquisitions and ERM development in Koha, and it has been sluggish to get movement on it. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We use Koha so we're likely to consider implementing and Open Source ILS. We don't use Koha to manage our electronic resources (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The [...] has contracted with Ex Libris for Alma/Primo VE, migration to take place over the Spring 2024 semester for a go live date of May 22, 2024. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)
We are overall very happy with Koha as an ILS, but would like to see more consortium based features. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are, currently, utilizing an open source product. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We already use an Open Source system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are already on the Koha open-source ILS and Aspen discovery layer, which is also open source. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Koha has been developed to the point where it meets the needs of library systems of all sizes; including large public libraries. ByWater's commitment to ongoing development and customer satisfaction set it apart from traditional library ILS vendors. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Some bugs reported lately that are still being worked out. Otherwise, the service is quite responsive. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Some reported bugs still being worked out. Otherwise, the customer service has been quite responsive. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I'm impressed with the level of community support with Koha. There are so many places to find information and help and everyone is very giving of their time and expertise. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
ByWater has been great to work with as a support vendor. They've helped us with big projects (erasing all past fines) and small annoyances (formatting spine labels). When I have a problem that's related to a bug, they send me the link to the bug tracker so I can comment and follow the fix. Yay, open source! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
ByWater Solutions provides great service. We wish they had more staff with which to provide more of that service. Koha is a vibrant and user-focused system that continues to evolve in great ways. We wish there was a larger base of developers working on it. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Regarding the question "How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources?" I answered "0" because we only use it for print. We rely solely on our discovery product for electronic resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are currently on an open source ILS, Koha. The system is hosted and supported by Bywater solutions. Right now we are satisfied with our current set up and looking to renewing our existing contract instead of looking for a new solution. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are already using koha an open source ILS supported by bywater. We are very happy with koha. We are still struggling with reports and rely heavily on bywater for support. With bywater our hosted system has rarely been down and we no longer have complaints about SIP issues. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our library does not use the print services. We are unable to see or get stats on e-resources from by water, we use Aspen for that. We have had several issues as a CoOp using Koha and still have many tickets that have not be resolved. Many of the tickets submitted the answer we get is that they need more detailed info when have included screen shots of issue, and they get closed without any resolution. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
We always deal with our tech support through [... ] so we don't know that much about dealing with Bywater directly. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The Bywater Koha ILS is a good match for libraries with an experienced cataloging/systems librarian, but less so for libraries with small staffs where librarians must perform multiple roles and don't have the bandwidth to specialize in cataloging and spend lots of time learning how to use the Koha product. The implementation of the system via Bywater went quite poorly. Likewise, when requesting customer support, rather than fixing the issue requested, we often get back a link to standard instructions that do not resolve the unique issues we are having. It would be much more helpful if the customer support team could correct the issue for us or Zoom with us to show us how to make the needed changes. Also, because of the way their ticketing system works, it is hard to resolve issues that involve Bywater and other vendor integration because they are very reluctant to share personal emails needed to connect representatives from the two companies. The cost savings are nice but only if you have the employee time as a resource to be invested instead. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Open source needs additional PERL programmers to respond to the increase in demand and to realize the true value of open source as responsive to the needs, ideas, and innovations of the users. This is an opportunity for both secondary and higher education, in my opinion. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Koha does not provide the granularity and depth of reporting that we would prefer to have. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
The [...] is very happy with Koha and Aspen Discovery and the ByWater Solutions Team. Koha is a great way to manage all of our physical materials and has expanded in ways that we are still working to incorporate within our library such as the acquisitions module and ERM module. Aspen Discovery's interface is modern and has allowed us to quickly and easily provide information to patrons about both our physical and virtual resources. As for the ByWater Solutions team they make it to where there are multiple ways to contact them and each are easy. The response time is quick and we know we will get answers to any of our questions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We may be looking at moving to another ILS, probably created by ByWater Soluctions, but we are not even in the planning phase. It's just something we're considering. What we would like is a more modern looking and interactive ILS. We are also interested in something that is a little more intuitive for staff to use. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are currently utilizing an open source ILS (KOHA). (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The [...] Library Network migrated to an Open Source system, Koha and Aspen Discovery supported by ByWater Solutions in late February 2023. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are happy with Koha, which is open source. And we are happy with the support we get from Catalyst in Sydney. It is appropriate to our library size and budget. We don't have e-resources as they are available through the College library. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our ILS is open source (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
DSpace would be in addition to our current Koha ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Koha is already open source. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are the "consortium office" so I do not grade ourselves. I could answer "10" on "Open Source Considerations" as we are using open source already but really we do not consider to change so I leave it blank. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Koha is open source (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We will change supplier for Koha in December 2023. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
PTFS Europe's open source ethos fit in very well with Koha as an ILS. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Since 2023 we are using the ERM components of FOLIO. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Libero is lagging in some key areas, most notable being the necessity of a mobile-responsive webOPAC (55% of our website traffic is from mobile devices). A fully functional, searchable eResource integration is also important, a basic integration exists but it is unsatisfactory in scope and title/resource discoverability. Customer service through Knosys is exceptional, absolutely no complaints in that area. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
we have talked to Bywater because a number of schools nearby have it and they seem to like it. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
2023 circulation = 198 (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I have absolutely no idea what any of these questions is measuring. I am a part-time librarian, and I simply use the system that has been in place since the library automated several years ago. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
The responsiveness of The Library Corporation to issues affecting schools is unparalleled. Recent legislation in Texas requires a way to provide more parental involvement in their children's book selections. In a matter of MONTHS TLC came up with a viable solution. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
TLC is still struggling to recover from its extremely ill-conceived decision to "eliminate MARC records" a few years ago. Their system still relies on MARC and the records are there, but library staff are still prevented from directly editing the records. This would not be a problem if the system allowed one to edit all fields of the MARC using the new interface, but alas only selected fields are able to be edited within the new interface and one must use a third-party MARC editor (export, edit, then re-import) to fully edit records. Select staffers at TLC have admitted that this was not a good decision, but the company never officially did and is still struggling toward making the system fully functional - which at this point it is NOT. I feel like we're paying a lot more for less than we had ten years ago. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
FOLIO: Made with academic librarians to be a "one stop-shop" for managing electronic and print products, good integration with our main vendor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
TLC provides a robust suite of services but somehow always manages to break something with every "upgrade." And there is always some basic functionality missing or buggy. But their customer service is responsive and friendly, and they try to keep us informed. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
TLC is a fantastic system and we have no real complaints other than cost about the system. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] completed migration to Library·Solution on 10/23/2023. We're currently working on initial impressions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have no particular objection to open source products, it would just need to perform at the same level and be as easy to use as our current closed source product, as well as have a way to easily migrate to it. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
E-books nor databases are managed through the vendor. Databases can be viewed through the library's website. E-books are managed through its vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
I am the digital service librarian. I am not responsible for choosing the ILS option. However, I know the material services department has no plans to move to a different ILS in the near future due to budgeting and training for the employees. We have just updated our current ILS and it was a tough migration for no real update in the product. We are not impressed by the changes made in the new updates, the ones we have noticed have detracted from functionality. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I don't have any issues with the system. It serves our needs well. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
There 0 in questions 3 & 4 are because there is no N/A. We do not have an IT department, (I had to look up open source ISL). Not interested because it sounds like too much for a little library with one staff. (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We just updated from M3 to M5 from Mandarin. The library had not been using any software since the M3 subscription lapsed in 2020 until the current librarian was hired in January 2024. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
we would love to stay with an Innovative product but I don't think our budget will allow that (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Maybe this is the year we implement an ILS! (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 0)
We are substantially downsizing our physical holdings and have not routinely circulated physical books in several years, so a full-suite ILS solution is no longer necessary for our library. Therefore, we would only consider low-cost, low-maintenance options to support a basic catalog. If this were not the case, we would be very interested in open source solutions. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small)
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.) (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)
OCLC Wise is a fairly new product, and it has required a lot of work to improve it. Things are getting better, though it's been a lot of time and work. It does a good job as POS which has created a lot of integration with finance. A lo to of third-party vendors require a lot of work to function with OCLC Wise. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
All libraries in our part of the country use the same ILS, so changing and/or choosing is not an option for the moment. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
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. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
Search is based on a Drupal interface with AquaBrowser search API (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
OPALS is a great value for the price and includes value-added features such as modules for Pathfinders and equipment. Plus, its homepage is very customizable; and the system is fairly easy to use. However, it has some drawbacks for academic libraries. First, its language for placing a hold is "reserve," which staff and patrons easily confuse with library reserves; [...] and it does not exclude reference items or other items that cannot be placed on hold by policy. Third, data integrity is questionable since our last inventory experience, which somehow reactivated 100-200 deleted items. Fourth, its searching almost always involves automatic truncation (even of phrases), making it difficult to narrow down searches. Fifth, OPALS does not seem to handle mass purges of electronic resources; deleting electronic subscription titles may take careful strategies. It seems better designed for school libraries. But we probably will not migrate to a new system for a few years because of cost and other projects. We are satisfied with OPALS in general. OPALS meets our most important needs very well. Plus, OPALS technical support is very responsive and usually very helpful. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We don't use our ILS to manage our electronic resources. We use LibGuides to do that. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are a small library within a community hospital, so OPALS fulfils our current needs. Customer service has always been excellent through Bibliofiche (do not contact Media Flex, Inc. directly), and the price fits our budget. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
MediaFlex is FABULOUS!!!!! The quality of the support team is outstanding! (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This system has served our students and teachers well. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This is my retirement year. Our K-12 school library has used OPALS since 2008 during which the system has evolved to manage and access digital resources including database authentication and discovery searching. The support staff has been outstanding. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
MediaFlex's customer service is unparalled. Help desk questions are answered immediately and thoroughly, and additional functionality has been added literally hours after a request. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our library is totally satisfied with OPALS Mediaflex and its functionalities. It has a wide range of features, easy to use by admin and students. It is kid-friendly and its customer support is excellent. Our library does not even need to have a separate website as OPALS Mediaflex is enough to cater all our library needs. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Opals is wonderful and the team the services it even better! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS by Mediaflex has the best service in the field of ILS. I've been an enthusiastic user since 2007, and three libraries later I continue to bring OPALS to my school. It is simple to use, fast to set up and has all of the bells and whistles you'd expect from a major player in the field, with a much better price tag. Although I rarely have to reach out for support, you reach a human very easily via email or phone. The OPALS family is a terrific group of folks who care about the customer. They are constantly taking users ideas to upgrade and continue to adjust with the current needs of a small, medium or a large school, university, or even a private library. OPALS makes my job so much easier. Thank you so much! Their years of excellent ratings on this survey proves time over time, they are simply THE BEST! (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
In 2023 we migrated from a non-MARC product to a MARC product. The data migration was less than clean since the non-MARC product didn't really allow for migration at all! The export CSV file didn't include many essential data fields -- pagination for one. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I and my elementary Media Specialist colleagues are extremely happy with the OPALS automation system in our libraries. The search interface is very child friendly with a simple, yet colorful search screen. My young student volunteers easily manage check outs and returns with little guidance. I love using all of the Administration Reports/Tools available to me to improve my library catalog and my library collection. The customer support is extremely responsive, friendly, respectful and always willing to help me, from the President to the technicians. They offer free Professional Development to demonstrate new features or to explain how to use older features. I could not give a greater endorsement to the OPALS product or team. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I am very happy with the OPALS automated system in my school's library. The owner, Harry Chan, has delivered helpful seminars during our professional development days for our district's media specialists. He also posts how-to videos on YouTube. Harry has always been kind, courteous, efficient and knowledgeable. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Outstanding service! I am just in awe at how amazing the OPALS team is! They even help us solve our hardware problems. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have used this system for 16 years. It is updated every year and the service is direct, personal and competent. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The system manages diverse media formats well. The library portal and catalog have recorded several million visits and queries. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Excellent system support and digital resources integration. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We serve elementary school students. Our system interface is so easy for our students to use. Even early grade kids can make reserve requests! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our students love using the library system, which works very well. We love the technical support team. We can actually talk to them, and never have to wait on hold and listen to elevator music. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We appreciate this system and its outstanding support. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We receive outstanding support from our regional library consortium and the program developers. They have integrated our catalog OPAC and subscription database authentication enabling students to search the catalog and database resources simultaneously. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS is a sustainable, comprehensive, well supported ILS. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This is a renovation year for us. OPALS and tech support helped us maintain services by managing the collection's temporary locations. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have used open source software since 2016. The program manages our library well and now integrates information database authentication and discovery searching. System support is very responsive even though we are 13,000 km away from their service centre! We highly recommend this system to college libraries in our region. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are reviewing other products only to correlate their features - not because of any dissatisfaction with OPALS. We are extremely happy with OPALS, but we just want to see what other features are offering. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are not looking to move to a different automation system, but we are reviewing what features are offered by other vendors and software to see what options are available. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
We switched to OPALS sixteen years ago. This is the longest school management technology relationship for us. Frequent program updates and courteous, responsive support keep us loyal to this team! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The survey responses need to include "Not applicable". Our library is in a small community with potentially 300 users. Our management needs are limited to cataloging print resources; we do not have any electronic resources. We do not manage circulation through the system. We have not had reason to contact ILS for years. The system administration tools are not particularly intuitive but a way to work around them can generally be found. (Library type: Other; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have been using OPALS in our library for 14 years ans remain satisfied with the system and customer support. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our small specialized library serves a highly literate, progressive community. This system provides academic library research level services at a sustainable cost. We appreciate the attentive service of this open source community. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We love this system. Service is provided by our regional library consortium in collaboration with the developer. This year, hosting services were transferred to the vendor. The transition was painless. Updates are timely, especially the option to anonymize loans as soon as books are returned. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Have used OPALS since 2008. Our regional education consortium hosts and supports the system. Technical support is excellent and the annual software updates and portal / library Web page utilities enable us to provide our students and faculty 24/7 access to print, digital resources and streaming video resources; much of which were not available 15 years ago. We use all of the system's reports, Pathfinders and library portal widgets to assist our faculty teaching and student learning. Our consortium arranges users' meetings with the developer whose representatives present updates, listen to our suggestions which usually turn up in system upgrades three to six months later! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Excellent system and technical support. This past year, we implemented OPALS single sign on database access and discovery search that links OPAC searching with those resources. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This program and its community rocks! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We migrated to OPALS just before the pandemic. The data transfer was efficient and the training done by an experienced librarian. During the pandemic, the company updated the software enabling students and parents to book resources and pickup dates and to manage returned resource quarantine. We also implemented their SSO and discovery searching supporting remote learning with reliable resources. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We continue to give this system the highest marks. Our suggestions are actually implemented, they allow us to communicate with their programmers! Tech support staff are calm, friendly, know who and where we are and usually answer our questions in less than 30 minutes. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Nous restons très satisfaits d'OPALS et du support technique que nous recevons de la compagnie! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Students and faculty use the library resources throughout the day and into the night. eBooks and video streaming resources are accessed using the system's discovery search and authentication SSO. Our library also manages a range of equipment: projectors, laptops, etc. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Opals and the company support team have been such a great fit for our school library! (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our school district manages a central book and resources depot servicing teachers in 13 schools. Techers can choose desired instructional resources and book them for delivery on selected dates. We have used OPALS for 17 years and it has kept pace with media format changes along the way. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS has been a reliable library system for our small college library. It is updated every year and technical support is outstandng. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our elementary school students use OPAC interfaces designed for them. Our OPALS has two kids interfaces for k3 and 3-5 students. They also have SSO access to databases and a discovery search. It's amazing to watch them use the system to explore the collection! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We moved from another system just over a year ago. We are now having to cope with a great system and awesome service. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are located in Oceana. We have been using OPALS for 10 years. The service is reliable. Our young students. like to use the interfaces designed for them and teachers assemble reading resources for their classes using the advanced search option. We do not yet have access to digital resources. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our union catalog manages inter library loan services for over 70 libraries in this region. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
We continue to be satisfied with OPALS after 15 years. This is a community where we can request changes that the developers actually implement; even culturally sensitive changes. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our library returned to OPALS two years ago. We appreciate the system and services. The system now manages our eBook and print collection. (Library type: Theology; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our union catalog manages interlibrary loan transactions and serves as a useful collection development cataloging resource for the branches. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our community serves multilingual families. OPALS handles non-Roman alphabet characters enabling us to catalog in both languages. The portal features make it possible to feature online services to young children, adolescents and adults. The system works very well for us and the service is outstanding. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We work with a range of younger students. This system has OPAC interfaces that K-3 students can use, an interface for intermediate level students, and one that teachers and parents can use for more advanced research. The circulation system has features designed to efficiently process busy class library visits. Their attention to elementary school libraries is so appreciated here. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This is an amazing community. We are a small rural school. We had to rebuild our school library after a fire. A colleague recommended we contact OPALS who provided the system, numerous training sessions by a professional librarian (at no cost), and uploaded our Mackin provided MARC records. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Post pandemic service is still quarantined! If every vendor and company we deal with responded as in-depth and quickly as OPALS, our lives would be much easier! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are building a college library to serve students enrolled in our growing technical and vocational programs. This system provides a standards based library application that other colleges have used to manage their digital and video streaming resources; a place to which we aspire. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our library community has evolved over the past 12 years. This program has kept pace with those changes and brought new ideas and resources to our learning community. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We discovered OPALS four years ago. We switched just prior to the pandemic; a transition that was painless. They developed special services at that time, and have been helpful with system updates since. We are not a large institution. but we receive gold standard service. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are have used this system for 17 years. We serve a multilingual (English, French, Hebrew) elementary school student population and manage approximately 16,000 transactions a year. Our young students use the the OPAC which handles approximately 3,300 queries per school year. The latest updates include an OPAC search report listing and analyzing search queries that do not link to the students or teachers. This enables us to know our community's current search interests and historical analysis enables us to prepare for cyclical research trends in a school setting. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We needed to find a new library system. The OPALS reports here and elsewhere seemed too good to be true. This is only our first year and so far, the transfer was painless, tutoring by library professionals was outstanding, and we've already received system updates. We look forward to letting you know how the second year plays out. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I cannot say enough how great OPALS is for us. The ease of use and responsiveness of their team is excellent. I have used two other school library automation programs but OPALS is the best. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] is already migrating to FOLIO. FOLIO-ERM is yet in production. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
I will do my best to update collection size at individual branches rather than the whole system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
520,546 represents the entire [...]. 372,283 if you are just referring to the Main Branch. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our new online catalog overlay (Aspen Discovery) is built on open source.technology. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We went live with Vega Discover on May 1, 2023. And promptly told staff to stop using it on May 18th. Innovative sold us a product in 2022, that didn't even have the functions they said it had then (2022) by spring 2023. We have been working with them for months on the various issues and while some have been fixed, some have not and are apparently not an easy fix. We are very unhappy with Innovative right now. Our main issues are that our eContent is not showing correctly as they are having issues with the Indiana Digital Library and other OverDrive Advantage accounts. Their roll-up feature is also not working the way we expected. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We don't have enough money to consider an open source as we can't afford to bring on developers to staff. With so few products on the market, we are prepared to just accept what is available and choose an ILS that we can afford and will make do.- (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Product is overall fine. Customer service and response/resolution turnaround continues to falter. We have tickets years old that are still unresolved. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Library staffing levels and equipment are not conducive to an open source ILS solution (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I am very new to managing the library. My answers reflect my current inexperience. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We switched to Polaris Leap in March 2022. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Overall, I feel that integrated library systems have a monopoly since it is a very small market. There are many different configurations for public libraries and an ILS should be able to work with each configuration. If there is an open source software that can do that, I would be interested. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We continue to struggle with how products function for our library consortium. We need more autonomy built in for the individual systems to control some of the features of the Vega Discovery Layer for example. Innovative is also shifting away from working with other vendors because they want all services to function through them such as promote, events, etc. The focus they are putting on those additional products means they aren't giving enough attention to the nuts and bolts of how their systems could work better for libraries and consortia. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Last year's comments are still valid. Some improvements and developments have been made in LEAP for Acquisitions and Cataloging, but there is a long road ahead to make the web-based product as functional as the client. We continue to struggle with resource-heavy reports crashing overnight. Those crashes disable the autofill feature and slows down processing. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We work mostly through our consortium so we don't have much direct exposure to our ILS vendor. In the above we considered "electronic resources" to encompass OverDrive content. Physical items represent approximately 1.7M and additionally we have approximately 600K digital items. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We currently share our ILS with the local public and community college library. The public library is the system owner/administrator. Even though there are better and more effective systems out there (and ones that would be better suited to an academic rather than public library), we do not have the budget to consider that, or to consider an open-source system that would require a funded staff position to administer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Polaris ILS is great. Vega Discovery has lots of problems. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
This product has a terrible library search catalogue - much easier to use patron catalogue. The catalogue is in no way intuitive and often you cannot find a book under title, but if you try again, it is under author. Very irritating. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)
Not sure what an open source is, so I didn't want to comment (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our Polaris ILS works well for the majority of our needs, but we cannot justify the annual price increases anymore. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Regarding the question, "Would the library consider working with this company again if it were to migrate to a new system in the future?" our answer "very likely" is because we simply wouldn't exclude Clarivate/Innovative from consideration without a significant product/service or corporate failing. Our answer should not be understood to mean that we would *prefer* to work with Clarivate/Innovative over any other vendor, though. We'd be open to it. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are the administrator of the ILS for a consortium. Many features of the ILS and of new products are not built with consortia in mind, and it takes a long time for the products to be ready for us. When they do roll them out, they often need a lot of work to make them functional for consortia. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are a school library who uses Polaris because that is what our public library uses and we are linked with our public library. It really is not made for school use and I wish they would add a few more features that could make it better for us to use. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Product is very good and staff like it but customer service is poor. Additional charges for anything to be adjusted can be high. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are considering an open source solution because of the high cost of keeping Sierra. (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
All our implementation and support tickets go to our state consortium, who are very responsive, even when the system vendor is not responding to them. Our local needs are crying out for a discovery interface, an ILS simply cannot accommodate. Our resources are over ninety (90) percent digital, housed in different databases. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Really tired of working in a Java based system that still requires SSH into a command line interface to do certain tasks. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Not applicable (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We are part of a multi-branch system of libraries which - however - are not part of the same institution. This means that system's notifications and some other parts of the system confusing indicate that messages are being sent from the biggest library in this ecosystem. Frustratingly, the "sent-from" email address is virtual, and users hitting reply won't either get an auto reply, nor can we see such replies. This has led to some frustrating complaints from users. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We re in early implementation stages of FOLIO but our current system is still Sierra (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are currently migrating to FOLIO and EDS, hosted by EBSCO Information Services, with a go-live date of 7/1/2024. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are currently in the progress of migrating from ii Sierra to SD Symphony (Aspen as discovery layer). This part of us joining the SWAN consortium. We had been a stand alone library. We go live with SWAN/Symphony on [...] . (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Some of the customer support reps who respond to my tickets don't seem to read them very closely, but there are two who are always incredibly helpful. We LOVE our "Customer Success Representative," [...]! (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
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. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
Concerns are acknowledged reasonably well and quickly, but with the price increasing each year a library should be able to expect more from ILS vendors, including annual reviews. At times I just feel like we're taken for granted. I also think that some vendors have an unrealistic expectation of the value that they bring to the marketplace. Perhaps more should be done to demonstrate this value. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
I don't work with the vendor directly, so i had only vague notions about their performance. Help desk support is provided by our consortium, with which we are very satisfied. We're currently using III's Sierra, but are in the process of migrating to Folio, which EBSCO will be hosting and supporting. Our consortium office will be providing primary support, as they did with Sierra. (Library type: State; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
We would prefer to migrate away from Innovative and Sierra, however, we do not have the personnel to research, plan, and carry out an ILS/LPS migration. So we are kind of stuck with what we have and it doesn't always meet our needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We just migrated from on-premises Sierra installation to cloud-hosted Sierra this year. Due to IT security requirements, we had to switch to Sierra Web instead of Desktop application. Sierra Web's instability caused the rating for the product to be lower. However, switching to another ILS requires massive efforts by the library which we are unable to commit to in the near term. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Se ha mejorado mucho en las API de Sierra. Estamos considerando vaga como nuestra herramienta de discovery. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We must use the ILS provided by our consortium: MINERVA (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Under ProQuest and Clarivate, iii support has improved marginally. With that said, Clarivate has integrated horizontally and vertically into every stage of research, publication, indexing, content delivery, and citation metrics. This company, owned by and answering to shareholders, now has a vested interest in the end user selecting and citing their own content. This should be a source of deep concern for librarians. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
Yes, we are migrating to EBSCO-managed FOLIO with [...]. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Sierra provides okay customer service. However, when there is an unknown issue that requires investigation, etc., they sometimes could show lack of knowledge and they are always very short-staffed if the tickets get escalated to people in tier 2-3. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are part of the OhioLINK Consortium, which is migrating to ExLibris Alma (and other products) in the next 18 months (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Because we are part of OhioLINK, a consortium that has selected Alma as its new ILS/LSP, many of our answers around systems we would consider are informed by that consortial decision. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Currently waiting on completion of negotiation with Ex Libris to begin [...] migration to Alma. Negotiations ongoing. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Both Folio and WMS are ILS from providers we use for other services. We use Ebsco Discovery Services as our discovery layer, and OCLC provides our MARC records and handles our Interlibrary Loan. Both have been wonderful partners and either system would integrate with one of our current main products. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Our consortium controls 90% of the ILS. Changes and requests must go through the consortium. This ILS is shared with 40 other libraries and this makes it difficult to have a custom experience. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Some of those items we don't make use of, or our consortium would us such as How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? How satisfied is the library overall with the company* from which it acquired its current ILS (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Cheaper option (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
The library is interested in FOLIO but the University's IT section does not want an open-source system for a critical system (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are planning to move from Sierra to Koha / Bywater in the coming fiscal year. Sierra works for us but the price has become untenable for the amount of use our OPAC gets. It's complete overkill for our needs. Koha fulfills our needs at less than a quarter of the cost of Sierra. Two of our librarians have used it in previous jobs and prefer it to Sierra. Aside from price, we are concerned that Sierra has become something of an orphan in the Clarivate world. We fear that it's shelf life is limited -- how many ILS products will Clarivate continue to support? Sierra would seem the likely candidate for sunsetting. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are a member of the [...] consortium and will be implementing Ex Libris' Alma LSP and the Primo discovery service over the next two years. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are not yet at the product review stage. ILS changes may be required due to budget issues and tech support. (Library type: Law; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
The vendor has very active outreach programs and is very attended to potential customers (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I gave a low score for electronic resource management because, in large part, we use 360Core to manage e-resources as it's integrated into the summon discovery service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
"Company" responses here indicate work directly with Innovative Interfaces and not the broader corporate structures above it (Ex Libris/ProQuest/Clarivate). (Library type: Theology; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We contract with [...] group. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We've been generally satisifed with our LMS but increasingly find we need more flexibility for managing electronic resources & financial integration with campus systems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
[...] we have committed to migrating from Sierra to Alma in the next 18 months. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
[...] Libraries are currently using Sierra and will migrate to Alma in June 2024 (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We as part of [...] are all moving to ExLibris Alma. Too bad Sierra improved but too late. Of not iii customer service has gotten much better past 2 years. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Would love to have a simpler way of managing the ILS than using several platforms. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
we are still waiting to have our ILS provide us with a better way to send notices. Meanwhile, we've gone with a 3rd party product and are hoping the two companies play nicely together. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Not sure why Consortium is dissatisfied with Innovative other than Encore is no longer being developed and replacement isn't like by systems staff. Third party overlay isn't desired. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Many people within our library really liked the product pitch from FOLIO, but as a consortium it did not seem feasible to go with this product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are part of a consortium that is migrating to Alma/Primo this summer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We have not yet adopted Alma/Primo; we will be migrating to this from Sierra starting in the next few months as part of OhioLINK (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Product is very good and staff like it but customer service is poor. Additional charges for anything to be adjusted can be high. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have finished our first year with this company. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We migrated to Spydus just under one year ago but we still do not have all services implemented and this is mainly down to Civica and slow progress made on certain issues. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Consortium member. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our ILS is designed in such a way as to 'meet the core needs' of as many library services as possible to increase the companies overall market share and audience. The way this is achieved however in many ways overlooks the numerous unique processes of individual libraries and often restricts site-specific customization. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Due to Queensland Procurement policies we will need to test the market in the next 2 years (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Civica have been proactive in trying to improve speed/performance issues for our consortia. This included a major project to migrate to a different datacentre. We experience performance drop frequently, but not on the same scale as pre-migration. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Spydus has excellent user interface and functionality up front, but the back end/maintenance has atrocious design and poor help files. The online support/help files are an afterthought where modules/chapters are poorly set out with no connections between. There is no glossary and terms are not defined within each module. This makes it difficult to edit our OPAC and staff can use a lot of time figuring things out by trial and error. Civica is slow to respond to tech support requests. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
SirsiDynix has decent customer service, sometimes they can take awhile to get back to you and often scheduling requires considering multiple timezones. It's a big company. We've been able to make it work for us with their support so far. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Interesting time in the market in Australia. SirsiDynix and Civica are the leaders in public libraries, but Clarivate is now pushing back in with Polaris and interesting things are happening with Folio. Will be interesting to see how the space develops as we head back towards a tender in the next three years. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are already using FOLIO ERM with hosting and support by Index Data. We plan to migrate to a full FOLIO LSP in early 2025. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are satisfied with our current support structure and the system overall. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Symphony as implemented by our consortium does not perform to our total satisfaction. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
SirsiDynix Symphony served our library well. However, the technology is stagnant. Any improvements to functionality are available for a fee. Symphony is just not a good fit for our institution anymore and we are in our final months with this system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
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. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
This is strictly a matter of my inability to implement and manage an open source option. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Current system is set up to efficiently manage new, current serials. Managing access to issues of decades older serials is not so helpful for our need for retrospective topical academic research of often small press, unindexed serials. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our consortium is looking at other ILS options, but it's still pretty early stages. Although we're not thrilled with our current authentication system, it's way better than our old one, EZProxy hosted by OCLC, which had unacceptable support. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
SirsiDynix does a nice job putting out supporting documents, webinars and their support team is fantastic when we're having an issue. Our system is more unique than most and they work with us very well. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Symphony Workflows works and is adequate, but the staff UI is limited. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
More transparency (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
TIND is built on open source technology. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We get a lot of complaints about the OPAC, I feel that it needs a discovery layer built in. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Being part of a large consortium, this isn't a decision we can make independently. I don't envision the consortium migrating anytime soon. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
For the electronic resources we use eResource Central, another Sirsi product, which does a good job. We tried using Symphony for that but it wasn't very good. eResouce central was an additional cost. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We do not have an IT Department solely devoted to the library. Our city IT is not familiar with library systems and their functionality. This would prohibit us from using open source software as we are very dependent on our vendor's technical support. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The library is required to go back out to market after 8 years with SirsiDynix, this is not a reflection on the vendor, but a procurement and governance policy from the government. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
To clarify, our ILS Sirsi has no e-resouces managment capabilities, or non enabled. The answers about eResources refer to our use of Ebsco's EDS and Full-text-Finder, which is adequate but not a spectacular product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are one of the smallest libraries in the state of [...] . We rely on our [...] and they provide us with SirsiDynix Workflows. It is a complete-enough ILS that satisfies our library's needs. We don't use all of the consortium's offerings, but we rely on Sirsi Workflows. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
All of the decisions are made by the IT department of the consortium. They let us know when things need to or are happening. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We get lots of solicitations from ILS vendors. At my past position in academia, I have had the chance to look at a handful of ILS vendors. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Overall, I'm pleased with our current provider, although interested in the cost/benefits of moving to a different option. My current outlook is that it wouldn't be worth the trouble to migrate, unless I were convinced of a feature set and benefits that outweigh the difficulty of retraining staff and dealing with many of the headaches that usually accompany a migration. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I am pleased there are vendors working with open source products (FOLIO, Koha, etc.) and other vendor(s), whose ILS may not be open source, per se, but they are focused on providing improved access to open access content (SirsiDynix CloudSourceOA). (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
WorkFlows is built on older, inflexible infrastructure. Design is not intuitive, and overall administration is difficult even from a central location. For intermittent local administrators, use is even more challenging. Enterprise is inflexible as a search interface, especially Advanced Search. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)
SirsiDynix and WorkFlows are an archaic software/service provider that is not knowledgeable enough to provide support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
We answered not effective on electronic resources management because we don't use Symphony to manage the services. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are part of [...] so limited in our ILS choice. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are not happy with the current web catalog interface available to us, and the delivered academic reserves module can only generously be described as "bare-bones." There is little indication of movement on academic reserves, and a new web catalog is in development but will not be available for some time. Otherwise we are largely happy with the ILS, but these are two really big longstanding negatives. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our SirsiDynix interface has not changed in over two decades. We are part of a consortium and will only migrate if the will is there as we need to partner with larger library systems for their tech expertise and for cost savings. While Open Source is appealing, I feel our technological capacity just isn't there to manage it. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Sirsi is an adequate ILS, but they will nickel and dime you into the grave. They spread themselves too thin trying to do everything (and charging extra for everything) instead of focusing on a high level of functionality in their base operations. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)
Our largest complaint with Symphony is how it still after all these years cannot do a clean, usable export of a data report to Excel, even one as simple as the holds list. It is significant to us that Symphony does not handle electronic resources as well as it does print, especially for Acquisitions processes. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
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. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The consortia model gives us more features than a small council could afford. While it isn't perfect it is better for us than going alone. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are very impressed with our Platinum membership and the SIRSI staff who support our software and manage our customer service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Generally very satisfied with both SirsiDynix (ILS and DS) and Ovid (e-resources DS), but especially for support. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
SirsiDynix customer support is excellent on a one-to-one problem-solving basis. The company's recent response to the BlueCloud Mobile app is a little disturbing. Their billing department can be difficult to work with despite repeated reassurances that our record has been notated, etc. Our personal liaison is friendly and knowledgeable and tries his best to help where he can. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Concerning customer service, our current support requires us to pay for training beyond certain credits we're allowed per year within our subscription and other ILS's provide such training without added cost to the customer. Considering managing our resources I would like to see our ILS integrate an API into its makeup to include Knowvation so we can maybe have more discoverability on our OPAC with our Library to Special Collections. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Electronic resources are chiefly managed in EBSCO Knowledge Base. The main exception to this are purchased eBooks and some third-party platforms like Kanopy, Overdrive. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Having migrated from an ILS vendor that was relatively small, this ILS vendor cannot possibly satisfy everyone's needs without compromising those of others and since in many cases, we are the others and cannot afford customizations, we need to compromise often and work within the limitations of the ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
I am extremely appreciative of our state library providing the RFPs, review, selection, handling of subscription payments and providing technical support for our ILS as part of a shared catalog consortia. We wouldn't have a system otherwise. We don't have the staff nor bandwidth to support an ILS on our own. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The [...] Library is finding great success being part of the [...] state-wide consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
SirsiDynix overall is a quality company to work with, their customer support is generally responsive and helpful and the service representatives provide regular checkins to make sure things are going smoothly. Our biggest hurdle with them is that many of their systems require additional fees which can be cost prohibitive for a library with a smaller budget like us, some of these services we feel should be included as part of a contract package. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are a member of the [...]. I was the admin for the coops implementation and use of Symphony from 2016 until 2018. Now I am at a local library. The consortium doesn't have the IT staff to manage an open source product, and I don't believe they would engage a vendor to do so. They seem quite pleased with Symphony and even the most vocal users (technical services) have reached a steady state of acceptance. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our scores for overall satisfaction with SirsiDynix this year are lower, only due to their handling of the app issue. we are otherwise pleased with their products and customer service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
While part of consortium continue using this system. May investigate in the future an alternative. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The only limitations to the ILS are due to a 101 member consortium implementation. The Consortium makes choices due to the size of the group. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
I normally rate my satisfaction with the company itself a bit higher, however, I'm not happy with the way the BLUEcloud Mobile debacle happened. Leaving us stranded without a mobile app that we were paying a lot of money for along with the finger pointing between SirsiDynix and Solus has soured my opinion of both them. The situation left me with angry patrons and an agitated consortium. While SirsiDynix has worked to build a new app and get the product rolled out, the effort is too little, too late considering that this product should have been done years ago. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
The choice of ILS is made by a larger consortium of which we are a part. Otherwise, I would be looking for a replacement. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
Our organization would not support procuring an open source solution due to the lack of support options from the vendor. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are curious to see how FOLIO grows with the Library of Congress as its newest client. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Enterprise records for Hoopla e-resources is extremely limited; essentially just the title and author. Descriptions (such as synopsis) do not carry over from Hoopla digital. This is likely more of a Hoopla issue that Sirsi's ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Extremely poor handling of the BlueCloud Mobile product and changes have disappointed us this year. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
1) the city's IT department is generally not in favor of open source. 2) While VERSO is good for daily use, it is clearly not "designed by librarians for librarians." There are a multitude of small things that could be implemented to make it vastly more helpful (lets start with true keyword searching!) Their customer service varies wildly depending on which person you get. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
The current vendor no longer gives federated searching capabilities. That feature is important if there are multiple databases available. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are happy with the services provided by VERSO and are not considering migration to another system at this time. I think some of VERSO's patron management services could be improved, but I am happy with features related to collection management. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Verso has been very good on some issues. On others they don't seem to take the user into mind, we need some additional features when cataloging that are available in an edit screen, but not when adding a holding. (State Purchase this must be noted in the edit screen nowhere can this be done on the actual Item holding screen.) There is also added enhancements in the edit area, a button to auto fill locations would be nice to have on holdings screen. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Verso works well for our mid/smallish library, since we have no on-site IT or technical person (except for our accidental techies). Works well for circulation and for our in-state ILL service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
I'm new to this library. So hopefully what I have answered has helped. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I came here from a much larger library (10 employees vs me as the only employee here) I used the old CARL system in Colorado and Polaris. Both systems did some jobs easier, like editing patron and material records than Verso but Verso moves from task to task easier. I'm sure the price difference between Polaris and Verso makes Verso a better bargain for small libraries such as we have here. Over all I am very happy with the system I now use! (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our only criticism of the company is that it doesn't allow us access to the Authorities File (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I am disappointed that the ILS cannot fully integrate with our new library automated marketing platform called PatronPoint. We can only use PatronPoint's to send out emails like our newsletter, welcome campaign, and renewal reminders. With our current ILS we cannot use PatronPoint modules such as Book Recommends and Notices. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] has selected ALMA to replace Voyager. Implementation will be complete by the end of the 2023-24 academic year. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Auto-Graphics remains in the top tier for customer service and responsiveness. There are some things that are not functional and do create hiccups in workflows for our member libraries; at this time, those issues don't rise to the level of leaving the vendor for another option. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I have not needed to interact with Auto-Graphics at any point yet, and thus I have an opinion on neither the company itself nor their customer support services. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
More Formatting flexibility in patron notices would be appreciated. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Self checkin/checkout is a trend in public libraries. Our interface is NOT user friendly (especially for elementary students). It needs to be obvious whether the computer is set to checkin or checkout. When Checking in an item, the patron's name needs to be obvious (example, Thank you, Karla for checking in "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" in big letters). Currently, the students hear a bell when they check in a book and walk away. However sometimes the bell is for a message "no item found" because the student scanned the Universal Pricing Code. Then the student needs to know to go back to the top and click on check in again. It should be set up easier for students to get back to the check in screen. (Library type: School; collection size: very small)
The statistics are difficult to navigate and aren't user-friendly. Each month I have difficulties trudging through each set of statistics to get the information I need for reporting. I would like to see the platform upgrade this feature for those of us who use it regularly. It seems very outdated and with today's available technology, it seems to me that there are folks who could make it into a more functional system. Also, I do not like the fact that I cannot make adjustments to certain accounts. For example, at any given time we will have more than 50 items checked out for interlibrary loan. Because VERSO won't allow me to make changes or increase the number for specific accounts, my staff and I receive a loud alert every time we pull this "patron" up. Frankly I am not a fan of VERSO as it is right now and believe it COULD be a great system if it were updated to a more modern system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
I'm a substitute at branch library so not the best person to answer these questions. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
There are innumerable issues that we would love to see addressed. For example, to be able to hit a "back" button to access the record of the last patron served. The search feature is woefully inadequate and does not allow for parameters that would be helpful in finding materials (for example, to be able to search for non-fiction versus fiction). Often, search results have nothing whatsoever to do with the search request. In addition, the entire ILS system is extremely user-unfriendly. Multiple clicks are required to request an ILL and then to release the request, &c.--the system needs to be streamlined and made easy for all staff to use. Furthermore, it is often the case that when we request ILL, our patrons' records are not discovered by the system, even though they are registered patrons; we wind up reserving the materials under the name of the library and then have to keep records to know what materials have been requested for which patrons, making it a very ineffective and time-consuming process. Then there is the issue of general maneuvering around patron records, such as renewing materials, editing the patron records, and so on, which is presented in a counter-intuitive way. I have worked in several libraries in other parts of the state and in other states, and this is by far the most difficult and frustrating system with which to work. A complete overhaul and a new design would greatly improve our use of it and our ability to serve our patrons. Many thanks. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
It would be nice to register for tutorials and have them be available/sent via a video - many of us work part time, and while the tutelage has been excellent, it is difficult to be present for these tutorials based on when they are being presented. I had registered for a course and expected a follow up video to be sent and none were, which was disappointing. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Customer Service at AutoGraphics are usually very quick to provide an initial reply to our requests for assistance, but they are very slow in implementing the requests or figuring out how to fix what is wrong. Many times the system updates to VERSO negatively impact functionality in other areas of the system and it can take some time for them to troubleshoot it and resolve the issue or restore the functionality. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
There have been several "defects" occurring in Verso that have been brought to the attention of support but have yet to be fixed, some of them quite longstanding for a year or more. There are a lot of good things about Verso, but these defects are inconvenient annoyances that cause us to do more work in the long term. For example: the fine amounts are not always correct, and you'd think a computer could do better math than a human, but it adds up the wrong amount quite regularly. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The company that owns the ILS is not the original company. Currently the ILS is owned by a company that specializes in ILS systems and we could not afford to migrate to another system from the company, once support for this one ends. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] has selected ALMA to replace Voyager. Implementation will be complete by the end of the 2023-24 academic year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are migrating to FOLIO by June 2025. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)
[...] is planning a phased implementation of Folio, Locate, EDS, Full Text Finder and other products starting in October 2024. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
[..] has selected Alma as its replacement for Voyager. However, Voyager remains as the current ILS until Go-LIve on Alma, scheduled for July 2025. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our library has been very satisfied with the Voyager system and their customer support staff are excellent. The only reason we are looking elsewhere is the increasing number of signals from the company that it's nearing end-of-life. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] 2) We are migrating to Koha, hosted by ByWater Solutions. For all of 2023, we were on Voyager. Our go live date with Koha is 1/22/24. We will still share a catalog with Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary and are migrating with their library, the Wright Center. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
We do a substantial amount of original cataloging, for manuscripts/archive materials primarily. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OCLC is working hard to remain on the cutting edge of library automation. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We've spent the last 5+ years working to get WorldShare Management Services to where we were with III's Millennium product. WMS has improved much, but I wish OCLC put more resources toward software development. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
WorldShare Management Services is a pathetic ILS for Acquisitions and serials (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)
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. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)
First level support at OCLC isn't terrible, but for any complex questions that require escalation, we'll be lucky to ever receive resolution. Current staffing and budget at our university limits any ability to manage an open source ILS in house. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We have frustrating interactions with OCLC about WMS, but overall, the product works well and meets most of our library's needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have had a lot of issues with the WorldCat Dsicovery Service in terms of surfacing the correct resources in search results. This has resulted in a loss of confidence in the system by students and academic staff. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Currently we use Docline & SILO (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
OCLC has very attentive customer service and an online portal where OCLC users can assist each other and discuss issues. However, there are sometimes long-lasting issues that disrupt our workflows. For example, recently, almost every time our cataloger receives and catalogs new books, at least one is not discoverable in the public interface and OCLC needs to re-index it. Another issue that has popped up periodically is bad merges in OCLC records, causing eBooks to appear as books, or vice versa, in the public catalog. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We would only be interested in an open source ILS/LMS if we were forced by the university's financial situation to do so. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Open Source ILS is interesting because of expensive commercial products,(Budget) but security/continuity issues must be dealt with (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
It is a bit difficult for me to give a complete assessment of how our new system is functioning because the libraries themselves are responsible for the administration of their systems. Prior to this, most of the system admin work was managed in the consortial office, and this had become unsustainable. I can't speak with confidence about what the experience is for our libraries right now as they are still getting used to the new system. My impression is that things are going very well despite the usual bumps related to system change. Collection Manager has greatly improved the parts of e-resource management that have to do with making resources available and discoverable much easier. Collection Manager is critical for our small staffs with limited resources. If we had selected an open source solution, we would have selected Koha, hosted by ByWater. We really like Koha and thought ByWater would be an excellent partner. If all of our campuses had access to a discovery layer at the time we were selecting a system, we would have been able to consider it more seriously. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
IF we were to implement FOLIO, it would be via EBSCO. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
WMS continues to be well matched for our specialized library. The efficiencies allowed by WMS's integration with Worldcat are hard to beat. WMS's knowledge base environment provides additional major efficiencies and adequately represents our library's subscriptions and electronic holdings. Our library staff are pleased with this product. When issues arise, OCLC's customer service staff are responsive to help us address concerns. Our most common issue at this point is inaccurate grouping of related titles in Discovery, but customer service has helped us with this when we were not able to identify solutions on our own. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our current system vendor has us locked into their product, and associated non-transparent pricing, in a way that does not let us readjust our products to better reflect the work we need and want to do (e.g. more electronic workflows, CDL, etc.). (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
OCLC WorldShare grows and adapts with technology. I am very happy that we are part of this network. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
When we go live with FOLIO in mid December of 2023, we will keep using OCLC for I.L.L., FirstSearch, & cataloging. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)
We did not yet purchase additional modules that would make it easier. The report module was not purchased; and, when I inquired two years ago, the price was more expensive than it was initially. They also said they do not sell the product without it any more. There is another module for electronic resource licenses that we do not have. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
WMS is fine, but not great. Their reporting tools come in a separate package and we are not able to afford them. Customer support is uneven. We'd like to consider switching ILS vendors but with other priorities and lack of funds and small staff, this is unlikely in the immediate future. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
WorldCat Discovery Service is cheap. That is the only thing it has going for it. In comparison to similar offerings from Sirsi and III it does not supply a good reporting system and is inadequate in terms of display. Generating a new titles list for example is nearly impossible. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
OCLC's financial models are unsustainable, but the products and support are great. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We don't have the IT to support Open Source, so we could only consider a fully supported system, even if based on Open Source software, it would need a full support team. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We're by and large quite happy with WMS. As with many cloud products we're becoming concerned about the lack of substantial updates. New features seem to be fairly trivial, and we don't see many signs of significant new functionality on the horizon. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The current contract with our vendor expires in three years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
We moved to a new ILS this past year, and are still working to optimize use of the product. These scores will likely change next year once we have had additional time to 'break-in' the new ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We have only recently changed LMS, so we are not looking to change systems currently. We did review open source options favorably, and would be likely to include open source options if we change systems again down the track. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are part of the [...], which is migrating to Ex Libris Alma (and other products) in the next 18 months (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
|
|
|