Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for EOS.Web


2017 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction24 4 10 7 3 77.387
ILS Functionality25 8 4 12 1 87.248
Print Functionality25 4 2 14 5 87.808
Electronic Functionality25 2 5 6 7 2 3 76.286
Company Satisfaction25 1 2 4 8 10 97.968
Support Satisfaction25 1 2 2 4 16 98.289
Support Improvement25 5 5 7 3 5 76.927
Company Loyalty24 1 3 2 4 4 10 97.468
Open Source Interest24 11 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 02.381

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS25 00.00%
Considering new Interface25 624.00%
System Installed on time?25 2496.00%

Average Collection size: 115079

TypeCount
Public0
Academic2
School0
Consortia0
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00013
[3] 100,001-250,0003
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction32 1 2 1 1 4 7 12 4 86.848
ILS Functionality32 1 1 1 1 3 3 9 8 5 76.637
Print Functionality31 1 1 3 2 7 11 6 87.168
Electronic Functionality30 2 2 1 2 1 2 5 5 6 4 85.777
Company Satisfaction32 1 1 2 3 3 4 11 7 87.038
Support Satisfaction32 1 1 4 2 4 6 14 97.538
Support Improvement31 1 3 10 3 4 4 6 56.326
Company Loyalty32 3 1 1 2 4 5 8 8 86.568
Open Source Interest31 12 4 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 02.681

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS32 618.75%
Considering new Interface32 39.38%
System Installed on time?32 2784.38%

Average Collection size: 79775

TypeCount
Public1
Academic8
School0
Consortia0
Special7

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00019
[3] 100,001-250,0004
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction33 1 1 4 4 6 8 9 97.218
ILS Functionality33 1 2 3 2 8 8 9 97.218
Print Functionality33 1 2 3 8 7 12 97.648
Electronic Functionality31 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 8 6 4 75.977
Company Satisfaction33 1 2 6 3 12 9 87.488
Support Satisfaction33 1 6 4 3 19 98.009
Support Improvement31 1 1 8 3 4 5 9 96.907
Company Loyalty33 1 4 5 4 5 14 97.398
Open Source Interest33 10 5 3 2 4 4 2 1 1 1 02.702

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS37 410.81%
Considering new Interface37 513.51%
System Installed on time?37 3286.49%

Average Collection size: 65164

TypeCount
Public0
Academic9
School0
Consortia0
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00022
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction45 1 1 2 3 9 11 11 7 76.877
ILS Functionality45 2 3 1 8 10 14 7 87.027
Print Functionality45 1 2 2 5 5 14 16 97.588
Electronic Functionality42 2 2 4 2 1 3 7 11 2 8 75.767
Company Satisfaction43 1 2 3 4 5 13 15 97.408
Support Satisfaction45 2 1 2 4 7 7 22 97.608
Support Improvement45 1 1 1 6 12 6 6 2 10 56.076
Company Loyalty45 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 5 8 16 96.518
Open Source Interest45 20 8 1 1 3 6 2 1 3 02.241

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS46 919.57%
Considering new Interface46 715.22%
System Installed on time?46 4291.30%

Average Collection size: 67977

TypeCount
Public1
Academic10
School1
Consortia0
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0007
[2] 10,001-100,00027
[3] 100,001-250,0006
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction39 1 1 1 3 5 10 8 10 77.107
ILS Functionality38 1 2 6 3 6 10 10 87.088
Print Functionality39 3 2 4 7 7 16 97.568
Electronic Functionality36 1 1 1 1 2 4 7 6 8 5 86.317
Company Satisfaction39 2 1 2 10 10 14 97.548
Support Satisfaction39 1 1 2 1 3 10 21 97.909
Support Improvement39 1 4 8 1 9 5 11 96.777
Company Loyalty38 3 2 1 2 5 9 16 97.268
Open Source Interest39 15 5 5 5 3 1 3 1 1 02.051

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS39 615.38%
Considering new Interface39 820.51%
System Installed on time?39 3897.44%

Average Collection size: 64333

TypeCount
Public0
Academic6
School1
Consortia0
Special8

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0009
[2] 10,001-100,00020
[3] 100,001-250,0005
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction37 1 3 6 15 8 4 76.957
ILS Functionality37 1 2 3 5 11 12 3 86.897
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction37 3 1 7 3 15 8 87.198
Support Satisfaction37 2 7 10 18 97.978
Support Improvement35 2 13 2 4 7 7 56.637
Company Loyalty37 2 1 2 2 1 7 8 14 97.148
Open Source Interest36 19 2 4 2 4 1 3 1 01.780

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS37 513.51%
Considering new Interface37 38.11%
System Installed on time?37 3594.59%

Average Collection size: 65360

TypeCount
Public1
Academic5
School2
Consortia0
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0007
[2] 10,001-100,00019
[3] 100,001-250,0005
[4] 250,001-1,000,0001
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction20 1 4 10 5 87.958
ILS Functionality20 1 2 7 6 4 77.508
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction20 2 13 5 88.158
Support Satisfaction20 3 7 10 98.359
Support Improvement20 6 3 5 2 4 56.757
Company Loyalty20 1 1 6 12 98.359
Open Source Interest20 11 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 01.650

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS20 15.00%
Considering new Interface20 00.00%
System Installed on time?20 1995.00%

Average Collection size: 34479

TypeCount
Public0
Academic0
School0
Consortia0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00012
[3] 100,001-250,0001
[4] 250,001-1,000,0000
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0000
[6] over 10,000,0010



2010 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction8 1 1 1 4 1 86.888
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction8 1 1 1 4 1 86.758
Support Satisfaction8 1 1 5 1 86.888
Support Improvement8 1 2 1 1 2 1 56.137
Company Loyalty8 1 1 1 3 2 86.638
Open Source Interest8 2 2 2 1 1 02.502

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS8 00.00%
Considering new Interface8 00.00%
System Installed on time?8 787.50%

Average Collection size: 45095

TypeCount
Public0
Academic1
School0
Consortia0
Special1

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


4 Responses for EOS.Web in 2009


2008 Survey Results
Product: EOS.Web Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction7 1 2 2 2 77.718
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction7 1 2 2 2 77.718
Support Satisfaction7 1 1 2 3 98.008
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty7 1 1 1 1 1 2 96.717
Open Source Interest7 1 2 2 1 1 23.293

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS7 00.00%
Considering new Interface7 00.00%
System Installed on time?7 7100.00%




3 Responses for EOS.Web in 2007

2017 : gen: 7.38 company 7.96 loyalty 7.46 support 8.28

2016 : gen: 6.84 company 7.03 loyalty 6.56 support 7.53

2015 : gen: 7.21 company 7.48 loyalty 7.39 support 8.00

2014 : gen: 6.87 company 7.40 loyalty 6.51 support 7.60

2013 : gen: 7.10 company 7.54 loyalty 7.26 support 7.90

2012 : gen: 6.95 company 7.19 loyalty 7.14 support 7.97

2011 : gen: 7.95 company 8.15 loyalty 8.35 support 8.35

2010 : gen: 6.88 company 6.75 loyalty 6.63 support 6.88

2008 : gen: 7.71 company 7.71 loyalty 6.71 support 8.00

Comments

We are a public library using a system from a company whose focus has changed over the years, from serving all libraries to serving special libraries. We no longer fit their profile of the typical customer. This has caused many misunderstandings, particularly concerning confidentiality. (Type: Public)

We were dubious when EOS was acquired by Sirsi. At this point, the jury's still out, which is why the reviews are less than excellent. The customer support people we had always worked with, and who always came through for us, seem to have disappeared. Their replacements have yet to prove themselves (e.g. we requested a rebuild and we're still trying to make it work). If I had to put out an RFP again EOS would be on the list, but certainly not so near the top as it was before. The real test will come in a few years' time, when the contract is up for renewal. (Type: Government Agency)

We have used EOS for over 20 years. The vendor is very customer service oriented and their support staff have always been very responsive, communicative. Clients hold their own gathering to discuss the ILS and the vendor continues to be open to suggestions for improving or adding functionality to their ILS. (Type: Government Agency)

We maintain electronic resources separate from our ILS by plan. This scenario is more effective in information literacy instruction, (Type: Academic)

We are currently working on migrating from a local install to vendor hosted solution. On premises installations are becoming unsustainable. We are also seriously considering ditching the ILS entirely for a CMS, since the ILS provides much expensive functionality that we don't use, and isn't as good at managing digital content, or sharing our data as we would like. (Type: Corporate)

EOS was purchased by Sirsi Dynix this year and already service has significantly deteriorated. We are uneasy about the future annual pricing with Sirsi Dynix and the unreasonable cost of adding additional users. (Type: Corporate)

I am still uncovering issues related to importing our records into the system. Reporting is very difficult to work with. (Type: Academic)

Some of my dissatisfaction rests with my ability to accomplish what I want and that is not necessarily at the fault of the ILS vendor. (Type: Medical)

We have been very pleased w/EOS, especially their support. (Type: Academic)

Our problem with EOS is primarly related to cost, and their inflexibility in being willing to renegoiate our contract after we bought more than we need or use. (Type: Medical)

We are implementing more electronic materials over time. I expect the number of items to decrease substantially over the next few years. (Type: Academic)

We are very happy with EOS International, although there have been several very frustrating issues since its acquisition. I am hopeful EOS International's policies and work with the Library community will win out. (Type: Special)

My only concern about EOS is that they were purchased from Sirsi/Dynix this past year. We left Sirsi/Dynix to go to EOS as we were unhappy with their support and the cost. Am hoping that Sirsi/Dynix will not do to EOS as they did to DRA and others they have acquired (discontinued them and increased the costs). (Type: Academic)

EOS International was acquired by SirsiDynix earlier this year and our license was recently up for renewal. This prompted a serious analysis of options to renew or move to a different platform or product set. In the end, the EOS product offering proved to continue to be the best fit. EOS and SirsiDynix also were very good at answering questions about product life, support services, and account management. (Type: Museum)

Serials management was not covered in the survey. EOS.Web is great for print and electronic materials, customer support is great too. The serials module is somewhat problematic, however. (Type: Government Agency)

[...] (Type: Medical)

By now, for security reasons [...] cannot consider open source options. (Type: Military)

I was pleasantly surprised that I could use the EOS cataloging module with my personal iPad, and I did that while on an Amtrak bus that was equipped with wifi, while departing from ALA, heading from Las Vegas to Bakersfield. This hasn't been an advertised feature, i.e. a client server model with an ultra thin client and a database in the cloud. I'm populating VuFind with weekly updates done during a Friday night data export. The export takes about 45 minutes, it takes about ten minutes to massage that data with a python script and then about 30 minutes for VuFind to import it. We are using VuFind's NoILSs driver to show holdings, meaning we don't show live circulation status. (Type: Government Agency)

The vendor has always been very good about customer service and solving problems but they were recently sold to Sirsi so I do not know if this will continue under the new company. (Type: Government Agency)

We still have some conversion issues remaining from the legacy software that the current software is unable to resolve. EOS tends to add functionality and options without providing enough opportunity to figure out how the new functionality/options will change OPAC appearance or even workflow. Odd bugs continue to surface, though the support team handles complaints more effectively than before. New modules that may be useful are almost prohibitively expensive for our budget. Serial holdings display remains rudimentary. (Type: Law)

We have had some concerns about EOS being acquired by Sirsi Dynix, but so far the prices have been reasonable. Nevertheless, due to some technical issues, particular in Acquisitions, we have asked OCLC to provide a quote for Worldshare. (Type: Theology)

Very good enhancement program based on client submissions and updates installed monthly. (Type: Law)

I did not respond at all to the 4th question (re: how effective is the ILS at managing our electronic resources) because the [...] Library Program office does not manage digital resources. Digital assets management is distributed across several other major [...] program areas. In addition, the [...] Library Program has no funding for other electronic library resources, such as site-licensed database subscriptions (we rely on DOI Library for access to full text journal databases and laws and regs), and [...] libraries have not yet gotten into purchase of ebooks.

It's important for those reading our responses to be aware that the majority of the 400+ libraries in the [...] are not managed by an MLS librarian, nor is it typical that there is anyone consistently in charge. The usual park library situation is one of a revolving door, very part time, care-taking function, with some exceptions. It is all they can do to get the collections cataloged, which involves our training park staff or volunteers to catalog using the [...] ILS.

Because park libraries, by and large, do not have much in the way of collection development funds or budgets for ongoing serial subscriptions, and because parks are lacking in personnel with skill sets required to use the EOS.Web Acquisitions and Serials modules, none of the libraries in the system uses them, including the rare MLS librarian. And only three libraries have the skill sets and the circulation volume (most [...] libraries are for staff use only) to warrant investment of time in using the EOS Circ module.

We also don't yet use the Content Aggregator (RSS Feed utility) module, or the Reference Tracker module -- both of which were included in our purchase package -- but we hope to leverage those once we get another librarian on staff (we currently have only 1.4 FTE in the [...] Library Program office, which includes my position). I make mention of all of this because my responses are primarily within the context of the Cataloging, OPAC and Maintenance modules. I don't want to give the impression that we are endorsing the whole EOS.Web Enterprise enchilada when we are using only a portion of it.

I also wanted to explain my reason for giving 8's instead of 9's for the product; it's because in spite of all of the strengths and really wonderful features, the product is weak (in my view) with respect to provision of truly useful shelf list options as well as flexibility vis-a-vis the library labels report (e.g., although it uses a standard format, the vendor can only confirm that the program works with one supplier -- a minor one -- and certain settings are enterprise-wise only, like whether to enable printing of Call Number Prefix values to label sets).

These are both very basic requirements and fundamental to effective management of print materials (only a handful of libraries barcode, so we very much rely on well formatted shelf lists with just the information needed and no more, vs. an abundance of information, or a brief report missing a few critical data elements, vs. an excel output format that isn't truly Excel, etc.). We don't even use any of the shelf list reports but created a workaround using the Cataloging Detail report.

In sum, though, we are very happy with the product -- the EasyMARC option for original cataloging is critical for our situation (e.g., in that we have so many libraries and so few professional librarians) and the ability to customize the OPAC Discover interface via templates and drag and drop is really nice -- no Web design or HTML skills whatsoever are required to make a really nice looking portal interface that is distinctive and dynamic. Most of all all, the Client Services team is absolutely super!! It's also awesome to get new releases on a monthly basis that are seamlessly implemented (if using the vendor-hosted EOS.Web SaaS option, as we are), accompanied by monthly free webinars reviewing new features, as well as monthly focus group and advanced virtual cataloging webinars covering particular areas in-depth, based on EOS user community request.

The latest addition to the Client Service Team's monthly webinar series is a 15 minute 'shortcuts series' wherein workflows for a few different operations are touched upon at a fairly high level, which has been very helpful. Plus, with the acquisition of EOS by Sirsi-Dynix last year, there's a new Case management platform, which is wondeful. And the EOS software and client data was moved to Sirsi's data center (an outsourced function) for which FEDRAMP certification is pending, which is critical for those of us who are fed agencies.

We love EOS!! They are so responsive to the needs of special libraries (their major strength, I feel) and have the best Client Services team I've experienced in my entire professional career. Fortunately, the new parent company seems to be doing all the right things -- staying invisible to us, not affecting the EOS culture (very professional but folksy), but infusing EOS with added resources. (Type: Government Agency)

ILS