Statistical Report for FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services
Statistics according to type and size categories
The following table presents the 2024 results according to the type and size of the library.
| 2024 FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services Responses by Sector |
|---|
| FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium |
|---|
| | small | medium | large | small | medium | large | | |
|---|
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg |
|---|
| SatisfactionLevelILS | 40 | 5.70 |
12 | 5.92 | 11 | 5.82 | 7 | 6.00 | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
|---|
| ILSFunctionality | 40 | 5.38 |
12 | 5.75 | 11 | 5.36 | 7 | 5.57 | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
|---|
| PrintFunctionality | 39 | 6.41 |
12 | 6.25 | 10 | 6.70 | 7 | 7.00 | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
|---|
| ElectronicFunctionality | 38 | 5.89 |
11 | 6.00 | 11 | 6.36 | 7 | 5.86 | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
|---|
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 38 | 5.82 |
11 | 6.45 | 10 | 6.30 | 7 | 5.00 | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
|---|
| CompanyLoyalty | 40 | 5.97 |
12 | 6.25 | 11 | 6.55 | 7 | 5.86 | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
|---|
| 2024 Survey Results |
| Product: FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 40 |
| 4 | 4 | | 1 | 4 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 5.70 | 6 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 40 |
| 1 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 11 | 4 | | 7 | 5.38 | 6 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 39 |
| | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 6.41 | 7 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 38 |
| 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 5 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 5.89 | 6 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 40 |
| 4 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 5.88 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 38 |
| 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 5.82 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 40 |
2 | 2 | | 5 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 5.97 | 7 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 36 |
4 | | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 6.72 | 3 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 41 |
4 | 9.76% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 41 |
1 | 2.44% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 41 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 1267360 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 0 |
|---|
| Academic | 33 |
|---|
| School | 0 |
|---|
| Consortium | 0 |
|---|
| Special | 1 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 1 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 11 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 6 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 11 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 8 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 1 |
|---|
| 2023 Survey Results |
| Product: FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 28 |
| | | | 1 | 1 | 5 | 11 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 7.14 | 7 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 28 |
| | | 1 | | 1 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 6.79 | 7 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 28 |
| | | | | | 7 | 6 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 7.50 | 8 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 28 |
| | | | 1 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 7.00 | 7 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 30 |
| | | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 7.07 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 30 |
| | | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 4 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7.10 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 29 |
| | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 7.24 | 8 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 19 |
2 | | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 10 | 9 | 7.47 | 9 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 30 |
1 | 3.33% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 30 |
6 | 20.00% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 30 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 849424 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 0 |
|---|
| Academic | 22 |
|---|
| School | 0 |
|---|
| Consortium | 0 |
|---|
| Special | 2 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 3 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 4 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 6 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 12 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 4 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
|---|
| 2022 Survey Results |
| Product: FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 22 |
| | | | | 1 | 2 | 9 | 8 | 2 | 7 | 7.36 | 7 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 22 |
| | | | 1 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 6.55 | 7 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 22 |
| | | | | 1 | 2 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 7.55 | 8 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 22 |
1 | | 1 | | | 1 | 1 | 5 | 9 | 4 | 8 | 7.09 | 8 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 22 |
| | | | 1 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 8 | 7.09 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 22 |
| | | | 1 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 8 | 7.05 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 22 |
| | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 7.68 | 8 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 6 |
| 1 | | | | | | | | 4 | 9 | 7.83 | 9 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 22 |
1 | 4.55% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 22 |
3 | 13.64% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 22 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 1525665 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 0 |
|---|
| Academic | 20 |
|---|
| School | 0 |
|---|
| Consortium | 0 |
|---|
| Special | 1 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 2 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 4 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 9 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 7 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
|---|
| 2021 Survey Results |
| Product: FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 7 |
| | | | | 1 | 2 | 4 | | | 7 | 6.43 | 7 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 7 |
| | | | | 3 | 2 | 2 | | | 5 | 5.86 | 6 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 7 |
| | | | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | | 7 | 6.57 | 7 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 7 |
| | | | | | 1 | 3 | 3 | | 7 | 7.29 | 7 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 7 |
| | | | | | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7.29 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 7 |
| | | | | | 1 | 4 | | 2 | 7 | 7.43 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 7 |
| | | | | | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 7.43 | 7 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 3 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 10.00 | 10 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 8 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 8 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 8 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 1458913 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 0 |
|---|
| Academic | 7 |
|---|
| School | 0 |
|---|
| Consortium | 0 |
|---|
| Special | 0 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 1 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 2 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 3 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 2 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
|---|
| 2 Responses for FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services in 2020 |
| 0 Responses for FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services in 2019 |
| 0 Responses for FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services in 2018 |
| 0 Responses for FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services in 2017 |
| 0 Responses for FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services in 2016 |
| 0 Responses for FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services in 2015 |
| 0 Responses for FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services in 2014 |
| 0 Responses for FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services in 2013 |
| 0 Responses for FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services in 2012 |
| 0 Responses for FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services in 2011 |
| 0 Responses for FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services in 2010 |
| 0 Responses for FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services in 2009 |
| 0 Responses for FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services in 2008 |
| 0 Responses for FOLIO -- EBSCO Information Services in 2007 |
2024 : gen: 5.70 company 5.88 loyalty 5.97 support 5.82
2023 : gen: 7.14 company 7.07 loyalty 7.24 support 7.10
2022 : gen: 7.36 company 7.09 loyalty 7.68 support 7.05
2021 : gen: 6.43 company 7.29 loyalty 7.43 support 7.43
Comments (survey2024)
We are the very first cohort to use OpenRS. It is still being built out. We migrated from a Sierra ILS to FOLIO, hosted by EBSCO, at the same time we switched to OpenRS.
I am still convinced that open source is a better road long term than dependence on vendors who are subject to mergers and acquisitions. However, since there are no coders on my staff we are dependent on the open source community developers and the third party entities (K-INT for OpenRS, EBSCO for FOLIO, with the MOBIUS consortium managing the developer conversations). We were dependent on III before and their enhancement process was slow, so either way, we have to wait for enhancements.
It has been a challenge to migrate to a system that, while it does some things very well, has not yet built out certain functions that we use daily. The most notable downgrades for us at this point are:
-Lack of volume sorting (volumes in a set display in random order)
-In-house use statistics
-Print serials check-in
-Item status codes (all our old status codes map to AVAILABLE, IN USE or NOT AVAILABLE)
-Ability to designate non-consortial borrowing at the individual item level (there is a code in the item record, but its function hasn't been implemented yet)
-Create Lists
Things we like better with FOLIO:
-Label printing
-856 fields reside in holdings record rather than MARC bib record
-When we get more fluency with LISTS and BULK EDIT and FOLIO adds more record type options, I think we are going to like certain things about updating groups of records. However, staff will need a more modern skill set to be able to use these features. As a manager, I see pros and cons to this. Good opportunity for skill building for the staff who can adapt, but I'm not sure all my staff can make the leap.
We adopted EDS at the same time as all of this. It was pretty smooth to implement, and definitely helps with seamless discovery of our subscription databases.
(Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
A lot of our support queries are directed to the community rather than to the vendor.
(Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
While FOLIO may be a good product for individual institutions with robust systems' staff, the EBSCO FOLIO product developed for our consortium seems woefully under or undeveloped. It has been a frustrating experience that has required a massive amount of staff time and energy to do basic library tasks. We had a functioning system and we are now being asked to help build a system for a company through very painful trial an error and without compensation. Patrons who trusted us and our consortium for decades, have become very frustrated with the experience of using the catalog, requesting items from other libraries, and routinely running into unexpected issues. We are very unhappy with our new ILS so far but feel like we have few choices because of our size and dependence on our consortium.
(Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Just no AI, okay?
(Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
FOLIO is a flexible system, but it is still in the process of consolidation. One factor that gives confidence in its growth in capacity, support and functionality in the coming years is that academic libraries with a wide reach throughout the world have implemented it, both with support from EBSCO, as well as from other providers or even in local installations, showing that it is a system that is not necessarily tied to EBSCO, offering different possibilities for institutions that wish to adopt it. FOLIO also allows the manipulation of information by the library with relative ease. The library has been able to approach the mechanisms that FOLIO uses, and ultimately the Internet, to communicate information through APIs, so FOLIO has been of great support in the integration with other platforms, as well as in the learning of these communication mechanisms by the library for the creation of customized solutions that can improve the user experience. It is expected that in the coming years, FOLIO will see its functionalities increase, as well as adopt new cataloging standards. Some of the basic functions still have some shortcomings, highlighting the impossibility of viewing the user's photograph when making a loan (since it requires viewing it in the user module), and making renewals by entering the item (since the renewal is done with the user identifier, while renewing by item code requires more clicks), as well as some details of the cataloging process that can make it unnecessarily complex for the acquisitions staff. Although these inconveniences have been noticeable for the staff, we also consider that other tasks related to the adjustment of information, configuration of policies, sending notifications to users, generation of quick lists, management of electronic collections (although this function is still in a very early phase) have provided the library with greater control over the data it safeguards and manages. In general, with the adoption of FOLIO some aspects have generated greater facilities, others are still in early development, which has posed challenges for both the library and the provider in generating solutions. Finally, different projects have been generated in which FOLIO plays a role directly or indirectly, being a tool of operational relevance, but also in terms of innovation needs.
(Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are already using an Open source ILS, Folio.
(Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)