Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Horizon


2017 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction131 1 5 3 7 19 15 37 31 13 76.547
ILS Functionality131 7 5 8 14 23 38 32 4 76.317
Print Functionality131 2 6 11 13 29 42 28 87.288
Electronic Functionality129 5 8 14 14 9 22 19 20 13 5 54.865
Company Satisfaction131 5 2 9 13 12 31 46 13 86.807
Support Satisfaction129 1 5 3 4 14 11 25 37 29 87.018
Support Improvement129 2 1 2 6 10 50 10 21 15 12 55.805
Company Loyalty129 4 1 7 8 6 13 21 16 32 21 86.297
Open Source Interest129 31 17 17 9 13 14 9 8 7 4 03.122

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS133 4231.58%
Considering new Interface133 1813.53%
System Installed on time?133 11586.47%

Average Collection size: 847056

TypeCount
Public82
Academic29
School2
Consortia0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00042
[3] 100,001-250,00028
[4] 250,001-1,000,00044
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00013
[6] over 10,000,0011



2016 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction97 2 1 6 10 15 30 22 11 76.767
ILS Functionality99 2 6 2 14 13 33 21 8 76.567
Print Functionality99 1 2 6 7 26 36 21 87.498
Electronic Functionality97 4 5 7 16 3 12 14 21 9 6 75.116
Company Satisfaction98 3 7 5 17 22 27 17 87.017
Support Satisfaction97 1 1 2 3 8 9 21 28 24 87.228
Support Improvement99 2 1 2 4 7 23 20 13 14 13 56.066
Company Loyalty99 3 2 3 1 9 8 12 20 20 21 96.557
Open Source Interest95 28 12 13 3 7 7 10 8 5 2 02.992

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS99 2828.28%
Considering new Interface99 1515.15%
System Installed on time?99 9292.93%

Average Collection size: 1123422

TypeCount
Public56
Academic23
School2
Consortia0
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00031
[3] 100,001-250,00019
[4] 250,001-1,000,00029
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00014
[6] over 10,000,0011



2015 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction108 1 3 7 7 13 21 28 22 6 76.237
ILS Functionality108 2 3 4 10 13 22 27 21 6 76.197
Print Functionality108 1 1 1 12 18 22 37 16 87.117
Electronic Functionality106 5 11 13 9 7 17 14 15 12 3 54.615
Company Satisfaction108 1 3 7 6 10 14 27 29 11 86.547
Support Satisfaction106 1 3 7 4 9 5 29 31 17 86.827
Support Improvement105 3 3 11 29 13 20 15 11 56.106
Company Loyalty108 6 3 10 1 5 8 13 21 18 23 96.137
Open Source Interest104 33 16 10 9 7 9 11 4 3 2 02.622

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS109 3733.94%
Considering new Interface109 1816.51%
System Installed on time?109 9788.99%

Average Collection size: 479033

TypeCount
Public61
Academic30
School1
Consortia0
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00030
[3] 100,001-250,00026
[4] 250,001-1,000,00034
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00014
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction127 5 8 2 10 26 20 31 21 4 75.816
ILS Functionality127 4 7 10 15 21 19 31 19 1 75.556
Print Functionality127 2 1 1 3 10 10 15 28 40 17 86.787
Electronic Functionality125 9 13 17 13 19 17 16 9 10 2 44.034
Company Satisfaction127 1 6 4 3 11 25 15 23 27 12 86.046
Support Satisfaction126 2 4 2 5 7 16 11 30 35 14 86.457
Support Improvement127 3 4 4 4 15 42 16 14 14 11 55.505
Company Loyalty125 8 7 5 4 8 18 12 21 27 15 85.777
Open Source Interest127 30 12 13 10 18 16 8 11 2 7 03.343

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS128 5542.97%
Considering new Interface128 2620.31%
System Installed on time?128 10884.38%

Average Collection size: 478138

TypeCount
Public81
Academic30
School2
Consortia0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00041
[3] 100,001-250,00029
[4] 250,001-1,000,00033
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00015
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction104 3 1 11 11 15 14 18 25 6 85.936
ILS Functionality104 1 1 7 10 11 15 13 22 18 6 75.716
Print Functionality103 1 3 7 15 10 18 31 18 86.897
Electronic Functionality102 7 12 11 13 13 11 12 11 10 2 34.194
Company Satisfaction103 2 2 5 5 8 16 11 22 18 14 76.117
Support Satisfaction103 1 3 4 3 9 10 11 11 28 23 86.607
Support Improvement100 4 1 1 4 10 36 9 12 8 15 55.725
Company Loyalty103 8 2 3 11 6 17 10 14 15 17 55.646
Open Source Interest103 25 9 12 10 6 16 7 8 2 8 03.433

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS108 4844.44%
Considering new Interface108 3128.70%
System Installed on time?108 9386.11%

Average Collection size: 631804

TypeCount
Public68
Academic20
School3
Consortia0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00029
[3] 100,001-250,00023
[4] 250,001-1,000,00038
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00011
[6] over 10,000,0011



2012 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction140 4 4 5 9 11 21 14 44 20 8 75.817
ILS Functionality140 2 5 6 13 10 19 17 41 17 10 75.766
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction140 2 3 6 14 12 17 21 32 25 8 75.806
Support Satisfaction139 1 2 5 2 15 19 16 25 36 18 86.437
Support Improvement137 3 3 4 5 8 55 12 18 16 13 55.665
Company Loyalty139 16 2 10 7 10 18 19 20 19 18 75.336
Open Source Interest136 33 12 21 8 9 17 11 12 6 7 03.383

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS145 7249.66%
Considering new Interface145 4128.28%
System Installed on time?145 12988.97%

Average Collection size: 509664

TypeCount
Public103
Academic24
School1
Consortia0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0007
[2] 10,001-100,00036
[3] 100,001-250,00030
[4] 250,001-1,000,00041
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00018
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction149 2 4 6 5 11 28 22 44 17 10 75.916
ILS Functionality141 1 2 6 11 8 21 24 36 20 12 76.016
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction149 2 2 9 9 15 12 27 36 29 8 75.946
Support Satisfaction147 3 3 6 12 13 23 29 40 18 86.557
Support Improvement147 1 1 6 3 12 49 17 23 15 20 55.976
Company Loyalty149 10 5 8 5 12 17 21 29 23 19 75.726
Open Source Interest146 31 15 16 11 10 16 14 11 12 10 03.754

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS150 8254.67%
Considering new Interface150 4530.00%
System Installed on time?150 13992.67%

Average Collection size: 639134

TypeCount
Public101
Academic31
School4
Consortia0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00037
[3] 100,001-250,00037
[4] 250,001-1,000,00047
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00014
[6] over 10,000,0011



2010 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction179 1 1 9 9 20 24 31 44 27 13 75.996
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction179 4 3 19 15 18 29 22 43 19 7 75.316
Support Satisfaction179 4 4 14 9 23 17 23 45 24 16 75.736
Support Improvement179 10 8 12 10 25 55 17 23 12 7 54.805
Company Loyalty179 21 9 9 11 20 21 24 31 19 14 74.945
Open Source Interest176 31 15 15 8 17 19 16 14 14 27 04.445

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS185 10657.30%
Considering new Interface185 6535.14%
System Installed on time?185 16287.57%

Average Collection size: 399582

TypeCount
Public137
Academic27
School3
Consortia0
Special4

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00045
[3] 100,001-250,00048
[4] 250,001-1,000,00052
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00013
[6] over 10,000,0010



2009 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction190 3 5 6 7 13 24 25 69 31 7 76.077
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction188 4 14 19 21 21 23 25 37 16 8 74.915
Support Satisfaction188 3 5 10 16 14 31 25 39 28 17 75.776
Support Improvement177 6 10 11 9 21 59 25 16 14 6 54.895
Company Loyalty186 26 9 12 9 21 30 16 26 22 15 54.755
Open Source Interest185 27 13 20 20 17 20 18 23 7 20 04.254

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS197 9045.69%
Considering new Interface197 4824.37%
System Installed on time?197 15980.71%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction206 3 3 9 18 24 20 41 54 31 3 75.686
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction206 17 10 22 25 31 33 25 27 11 5 54.324
Support Satisfaction206 8 5 16 21 20 20 37 40 31 8 75.356
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty206 25 17 17 17 24 33 21 21 14 17 54.375
Open Source Interest206 21 22 18 14 18 22 15 26 15 35 94.805

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS208 12761.06%
Considering new Interface208 5928.37%
System Installed on time?208 18990.87%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction178 1 3 5 4 10 22 48 56 24 5 76.136
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction271 17 14 22 33 46 44 40 33 14 8 44.495
Support Satisfaction270 2 10 14 14 25 32 47 58 50 18 75.896
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty269 28 17 21 21 34 65 29 29 16 9 54.355
Open Source Interest269 35 25 32 27 26 36 24 25 17 22 54.124

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS274 13649.64%
Considering new Interface274 6624.09%
System Installed on time?274 10.36%




2017 : gen: 6.54 company 6.80 loyalty 6.29 support 7.01

2016 : gen: 6.76 company 7.01 loyalty 6.55 support 7.22

2015 : gen: 6.23 company 6.54 loyalty 6.13 support 6.82

2014 : gen: 5.81 company 6.04 loyalty 5.77 support 6.45

2013 : gen: 5.93 company 6.11 loyalty 5.64 support 6.60

2012 : gen: 5.81 company 5.80 loyalty 5.33 support 6.43

2011 : gen: 5.91 company 5.94 loyalty 5.72 support 6.55

2010 : gen: 5.99 company 5.31 loyalty 4.94 support 5.73

2009 : gen: 6.07 company 4.91 loyalty 4.75 support 5.77

2008 : gen: 5.68 company 4.32 loyalty 4.37 support 5.35

2007 : gen: 6.13 company 4.49 loyalty 4.35 support 5.89

Comments

Horizon has been a great system to work with over the years, and it is with regret that we will need to shortly move to another system. However, with e-resources now forming a prominent part of our collections we need workflows to deal much more effectively with online information. (Type: Academic)

[...] is currently a [...] beta site for Intota (Type: Academic)

I'm concerned about AquaBrowser's lack of ongoing development. The support is fine, but despite a long phone conversation a year or two ago about what enhancements we would like to see, nothing has happened. We went from an in-house server to SaaS this past year, which provided a couple of small enhancements but that has been it since we first installed it in 2008. (Type: Public)

We are using their remotely hosted option, SaaS, software as a service. This is working very well for us. They are responsible for backups and updates. We can focus on other things than running ILS servers. (Type: Public)

The relationship with SirsiDynix has greatly improved across time. The only feature I haven't implemented with them is the mobile version of the Opac because it would be an additional cost. However, I am negotiationg for OCLC WMS. Ther most serious reason for adopting specifically this product (if we'll be able to obtain it at a reasonable price), beyond reputation and reliability, is that it would let us make serious improvements in the workflow (most of our cataloging is on Connexion). (Type: Academic)

We will be replacing our ILS hardware early in 2015. Implementing a virtualized system. (Type: Public)

Our current installation of Horizon works quite well and does the job. The work involved in preparing for the tender process, product selection and implementation of a possible new software is costly and time consuming. Staff, time and money that we do not have at the moment. The recent announcement by SirsiDynix to implement a BLUECloud product suite gives me optimism that we would be able to get a web based software within the terms of our current support agreement. The funds saved will be used towards more important student success initiatives. (Type: Academic)

Would like to explore open source options, but limited due to Consortial arrangement and governance/IT structure. (Type: Public)

The company has committed to continuing development of Horizon which is good news. (Type: Academic)

Horizon was a good system for its time, but now it has fallen behind. SirsiDynix does their best to support it for us, but it just needs to be put out of its misery. (Type: Public)

Consortium arrangement - we are a smaller partner in this consortium (Type: Public)

We are pondering an ILS migration in 2016. Considering the shifting marketplace, we don't know which vendors/products we would consider. However, a possible list would include SirsiDynix Symphony, Polaris, Sierra, and Virtua from Innovative Interfaces, asn well as WorldShare from OCLC. Considering the recent spate of acquisitiions by Innovative, we cannot predict which products will actually be offered in two years. (Type: Public)

The product is pretty good - stable etc. However, it's overkill for us now. Being a special library our collection has shrunk considerably, particularly the physical collection. We keep 2 paper-based serials which does not justify keeping the serials module (and so we've saved over $1,000 this year by not having that!). I do like the EDS - how it brings together various library systems and subscriptions under one blanket search. (Type: Government Agency)

Use of the vendor's SAS is under consideration. (Type: Academic)

Much of this is handled at the Regional level vs our local library. (Type: Public)

SirsiDynix offers a lot of new product enhancements for their ILS, but we have not been able to afford all that we have wanted. (Type: Public)

Support from SD is quite limited. they are obviously very good at 'talking the talk' however not so good when it comes to supplying products or updates. I've been involved with them for several years and any time there was an upgrade something major went wrong that meant a drastic change in branch processes. They were never able to address these and fixes had to wait until the next upgrade release. They continually 'sell' things that are innovative, however are constantly delaying product releases. These products come with a substantial price tag, which also makes one think twice. When we are faced with IT restrictions for various reasons, having to constantly try and sell changes and upgrades to upper management based on what this vendor tells us, which is then delayed yet again, makes us look extremely unprofessional and undermines our credibility. (Type: Public)

We are mostly satisfied with Horizon, but we keep an eye on other options. Staff know how to use Horizon, though, and the OPAC works fine (mostly) for our patrons. SD is offering better mobile device support, and we're looking into that, as well. As a law library (heavy serials module use, plus we also use Acquisitions heavily), we are not seeing much in terms of Open Source products that would be useful for our purposes. We consider whether we may need to migrate to a different product, but at this point, we are not seeing anything that looks much better. That may change over time, although SD has become more responsive to their Horizon libraries these days. Some time ago, they kept threatening to stop supporting horizon. I think the investors started realizing that this wasn't feasible (eg, to push a lot of libraries to migrate all at once). (Type: Law)

We can do most of what we want to do with Horizon works, but have run into situations with other SirsiDynix products such as Enterprise that have more functionality with Symphony. (Type: Public)

Consortia e-book collections in addition to local collection (Type: Public)

While Horizon out of the box earned some mediocre marks in the first few questions (functionality, essentially), we generally love the system because it has a very open back end which we have leveraged with extensive in-house application development. Our enhanced version of Horizon actually meets our needs very well. (Type: Public)

[...] (Type: Public)

This response is not from a library, but from a consortium office representing [...] institutions and their libraries. (Type: Consortium)

[...] (Type: Public)

[...] is part of [...] shared system (3,438,099 items) which is fairly committed to migrate to Evergreen in late 2015/early 2016. (Type: Public)

[...] (Type: Public)

May switch to new vendor (Type: Public)

As a hosted system we have had great support from SirsiDynix. This year, because of a very good offer from our vendor, we upgraded to the Enterprise catalog and integrated our digital content with their eReference product. My only real complaint is that they have been extremely slow in their rollout of new products. (Type: Public)

The Republic of Ireland is about to implement a national LMS. Sierra has been chosen, and a contract has been signed. (Type: Public)

Following a recent visit from our Horizon representative, we found that Horizon had been greatly enhanced and much more user friendly. Customer support is improving, as well. (Type: Academic)

We are disappointed with the lack of support that we have received from OCLC in the management of their WorldCat Local discovery system. This experience, coupled with what seems to be fairly frequent down times, has given us pause and is hindering our ability to confidently move ahead with WMS. (Type: Academic)

The company has been slow to address some of their issues related to functionality, but are now showing signs of developing software that will improve functionality across both main platforms. This looks promising and we hope this is a sign of the company has been listening to the concerns of libraries. The only issue will be if they price new functionality to high for the majority of libraries to be able to purchase it. (Type: Public)

As our budget continues to shrink it has become critical to evaluate our ILS and the maintenance costs associated with it. We also have had the same ILS vendor since 1991, since that time, many more vendors and products are available and we need to investigate what's out there. (Type: Public)

Individual customer support staff are great to work with; however, overall product development and fixing of known issues is a very cumbersome and slow process. (Type: Consortium)

Great working relationship with [...] who handles the SirsiDynix Horizon issues (Type: Public)

SirsiDynix has been very slow to implement promised changes with their BlueCloud web based services. (Type: Public)

The closest we have to a "discovery interface" is NoveList with Goodreads. We are not likely to move to an open source ILS because we have a branch at a correctional facility where a threat & risk assessment must be done on the ILS. It takes a VERY long time for this and open source is probably not considered as secure as what we have now. (Type: Public)

The library looks forward to upgrading the ILS, but has had local obstacles to overcome in order to move forward. (Type: Public)

We just upgraded to Horizon 7.52 and HIP 3.23 (Type: Public)

[...] (Type: Academic)

We also have a second ILS, Ever Team's Loris.but will soon migrate the base to the Horizon one. (Type: Academic)

Horizon est un très bon produit pour gérer les ressources imprimés mais il ne sait pas gérer les ressources électroniques. Nous avons donc un projet de réinformatisation pour passer à un SGB de nouvelle génération dans le cloud. (Type: Academic)

ProQuest 's team for Summon is very responsive and quick moving. But there are many problems. It feels like they are trying to do the Google thing and just make changes and fixes on the fly, but they don't usually have a bug-free implementation. They jump on the problems, but they always have problems. It gives an uncertain/unstable feeling when other things constantly go wrong from a "fix" to what seems like a separate problem. Feels like a lack of planning. It is a good company and they seem to be giving it the right amount of resources and doing a lot of good things, but it's been very uneven. I expect they will get their balance, but it's been bumpy. SirsiDynix is more deliberate but moving in a good direction moving things over to Cloud based products. (Type: Academic)

ILS