Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Symphony


2017 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction343 2 3 7 7 14 25 54 104 87 40 76.787
ILS Functionality343 1 5 5 8 13 29 59 101 91 31 76.727
Print Functionality337 3 3 5 3 7 14 34 80 125 63 87.278
Electronic Functionality341 8 17 24 15 20 53 60 66 58 20 75.636
Company Satisfaction338 2 3 6 7 14 30 48 77 90 61 86.927
Support Satisfaction335 2 5 3 8 9 20 36 64 105 83 87.238
Support Improvement331 3 1 4 7 29 89 39 51 56 52 56.346
Company Loyalty332 15 4 12 8 12 30 35 72 74 70 86.587
Open Source Interest336 107 46 49 22 41 35 16 12 3 5 02.382

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS346 6518.79%
Considering new Interface346 329.25%
System Installed on time?346 31791.62%

Average Collection size: 783822

TypeCount
Public152
Academic78
School10
Consortia0
Special6

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00013
[2] 10,001-100,000111
[3] 100,001-250,00069
[4] 250,001-1,000,00079
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00056
[6] over 10,000,0013



2016 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction432 3 4 10 12 18 31 58 126 117 53 76.787
ILS Functionality432 2 2 9 13 22 31 54 132 111 56 76.817
Print Functionality427 6 1 4 8 11 18 31 104 153 91 87.328
Electronic Functionality423 16 12 25 22 38 45 78 80 73 34 75.736
Company Satisfaction428 6 4 12 10 21 32 49 110 111 73 86.807
Support Satisfaction419 4 4 5 11 17 29 44 91 111 103 87.108
Support Improvement411 5 4 5 8 45 101 53 50 67 73 56.296
Company Loyalty426 17 11 8 11 16 46 41 84 90 102 96.637
Open Source Interest419 140 57 54 32 46 38 20 12 6 14 02.422

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS437 8118.54%
Considering new Interface437 5011.44%
System Installed on time?437 40392.22%

Average Collection size: 2747271

TypeCount
Public235
Academic132
School14
Consortia0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00016
[2] 10,001-100,000151
[3] 100,001-250,00092
[4] 250,001-1,000,00096
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00059
[6] over 10,000,0015



2015 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction437 5 6 12 8 20 37 58 131 113 47 76.667
ILS Functionality436 8 15 12 18 41 54 132 116 40 76.627
Print Functionality437 4 5 4 5 17 22 36 123 144 77 87.168
Electronic Functionality432 12 20 23 27 35 62 61 89 69 34 75.666
Company Satisfaction432 5 9 13 15 18 30 51 109 119 63 86.697
Support Satisfaction427 5 4 14 12 15 33 36 101 123 84 86.927
Support Improvement420 8 7 3 5 46 108 42 71 69 61 56.206
Company Loyalty433 23 14 10 9 23 44 49 84 97 80 86.357
Open Source Interest426 153 61 59 27 40 37 15 15 5 14 02.271

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS460 8217.83%
Considering new Interface460 4610.00%
System Installed on time?460 40287.39%

Average Collection size: 653631

TypeCount
Public256
Academic116
School22
Consortia0
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00021
[2] 10,001-100,000168
[3] 100,001-250,00091
[4] 250,001-1,000,00098
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00051
[6] over 10,000,0011



2014 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction354 1 4 9 16 14 29 55 124 76 26 76.537
ILS Functionality355 1 2 11 13 16 29 66 104 85 28 76.567
Print Functionality351 3 2 4 4 11 13 43 81 125 65 87.248
Electronic Functionality347 10 19 28 34 17 45 63 72 41 18 75.316
Company Satisfaction352 9 12 17 19 26 57 98 80 34 76.437
Support Satisfaction348 2 4 7 11 13 29 50 86 89 57 86.827
Support Improvement339 2 3 2 9 38 96 29 49 53 58 56.286
Company Loyalty343 13 12 13 17 22 38 43 56 68 61 86.157
Open Source Interest346 108 61 49 26 31 25 18 6 8 14 02.392

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS361 7621.05%
Considering new Interface361 5214.40%
System Installed on time?361 32289.20%

Average Collection size: 707313

TypeCount
Public182
Academic111
School7
Consortia0
Special6

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00014
[2] 10,001-100,000118
[3] 100,001-250,00081
[4] 250,001-1,000,00075
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00049
[6] over 10,000,0012



2013 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction315 3 3 8 14 18 23 36 99 74 37 76.617
ILS Functionality314 2 2 7 20 10 20 52 88 72 41 76.657
Print Functionality314 3 1 3 4 9 20 35 76 99 64 87.218
Electronic Functionality307 7 17 21 29 24 46 52 50 36 25 65.366
Company Satisfaction313 4 9 10 16 14 17 43 81 77 42 76.517
Support Satisfaction312 4 3 6 8 16 26 28 77 79 65 86.917
Support Improvement307 4 2 7 5 17 83 23 57 50 59 56.467
Company Loyalty312 21 8 10 9 17 41 26 56 61 63 96.197
Open Source Interest304 90 34 49 22 27 40 13 13 7 9 02.672

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS324 6620.37%
Considering new Interface324 5817.90%
System Installed on time?324 29290.12%

Average Collection size: 835498

TypeCount
Public139
Academic87
School29
Consortia0
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00024
[2] 10,001-100,00080
[3] 100,001-250,00064
[4] 250,001-1,000,00067
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00041
[6] over 10,000,0012



2012 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction380 2 2 10 19 25 48 50 122 72 30 76.377
ILS Functionality380 1 1 5 24 24 41 47 114 94 29 76.527
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction378 1 6 14 26 22 43 65 98 71 32 76.217
Support Satisfaction378 1 5 11 14 35 44 36 102 80 50 76.487
Support Improvement371 3 3 6 16 26 99 45 55 69 49 56.236
Company Loyalty376 30 11 22 18 25 48 33 76 54 59 75.707
Open Source Interest374 97 44 47 35 35 42 28 19 13 14 03.012

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS393 7920.10%
Considering new Interface393 7619.34%
System Installed on time?393 34888.55%

Average Collection size: 644460

TypeCount
Public206
Academic114
School4
Consortia0
Special9

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00017
[2] 10,001-100,000125
[3] 100,001-250,00093
[4] 250,001-1,000,00080
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00054
[6] over 10,000,0012



2011 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction326 5 6 9 11 21 37 61 102 57 17 76.187
ILS Functionality320 1 2 7 18 18 30 63 93 69 19 76.397
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction326 6 7 19 20 24 35 58 83 53 21 75.886
Support Satisfaction324 4 10 11 14 18 44 54 72 68 29 76.177
Support Improvement323 5 10 10 12 28 81 37 60 48 32 55.876
Company Loyalty323 23 16 16 13 31 44 40 54 55 31 85.476
Open Source Interest318 63 32 48 21 34 45 18 27 12 18 03.483

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS333 7622.82%
Considering new Interface333 8826.43%
System Installed on time?333 30390.99%

Average Collection size: 570393

TypeCount
Public151
Academic116
School4
Consortia0
Special10

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00010
[2] 10,001-100,00098
[3] 100,001-250,00077
[4] 250,001-1,000,00084
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00040
[6] over 10,000,0011



2010 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction271 3 5 9 12 19 37 41 77 50 18 76.157
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction271 8 8 17 11 26 37 54 57 39 14 75.636
Support Satisfaction269 8 7 15 20 23 32 50 56 39 19 75.676
Support Improvement271 11 7 16 28 21 87 26 26 26 23 55.155
Company Loyalty270 18 15 10 24 29 34 40 40 32 28 65.266
Open Source Interest269 64 26 30 17 19 31 29 19 14 20 03.593

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS282 5720.21%
Considering new Interface282 8128.72%
System Installed on time?282 24285.82%

Average Collection size: 580366

TypeCount
Public142
Academic88
School4
Consortia0
Special10

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00085
[3] 100,001-250,00051
[4] 250,001-1,000,00054
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00028
[6] over 10,000,0011



2009 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction304 3 5 6 9 16 62 56 96 44 7 76.066
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction303 5 9 27 23 22 56 48 79 29 5 75.346
Support Satisfaction303 3 12 30 23 17 54 45 66 41 12 75.446
Support Improvement292 7 11 19 29 23 89 35 39 30 10 55.095
Company Loyalty301 32 14 12 14 23 67 31 49 43 16 55.065
Open Source Interest300 53 34 26 25 30 40 25 20 23 24 03.904

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS310 4915.81%
Considering new Interface310 8527.42%
System Installed on time?310 26184.19%





2008 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction233 4 7 11 19 16 35 37 64 32 8 75.686
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction234 9 9 16 31 28 23 43 43 26 6 65.056
Support Satisfaction233 12 14 23 18 21 36 39 38 23 9 64.915
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty233 21 13 19 18 17 36 20 43 34 12 74.955
Open Source Interest231 36 23 21 24 17 37 12 23 16 22 54.114

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS234 5423.08%
Considering new Interface234 6929.49%
System Installed on time?234 21491.45%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Symphony Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction200 4 1 5 10 6 23 29 64 43 15 76.417
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction284 5 8 20 23 27 43 47 61 38 12 75.506
Support Satisfaction282 6 10 13 27 37 33 42 64 34 16 75.486
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty279 25 10 12 9 16 59 31 42 36 39 55.526
Open Source Interest281 54 41 36 32 17 36 21 14 9 21 03.353

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS288 4214.58%
Considering new Interface288 6020.83%
System Installed on time?288 10.35%




2017 : gen: 6.78 company 6.92 loyalty 6.58 support 7.23

2016 : gen: 6.78 company 6.80 loyalty 6.63 support 7.10

2015 : gen: 6.66 company 6.69 loyalty 6.35 support 6.92

2014 : gen: 6.53 company 6.43 loyalty 6.15 support 6.82

2013 : gen: 6.61 company 6.51 loyalty 6.19 support 6.91

2012 : gen: 6.37 company 6.21 loyalty 5.70 support 6.48

2011 : gen: 6.18 company 5.88 loyalty 5.47 support 6.17

2010 : gen: 6.15 company 5.63 loyalty 5.26 support 5.67

2009 : gen: 6.06 company 5.34 loyalty 5.06 support 5.44

2008 : gen: 5.68 company 5.05 loyalty 4.95 support 4.91

2007 : gen: 6.41 company 5.50 loyalty 5.52 support 5.48

Comments

Symphony is a reliable, strong, very good product. Enterprise is not. The relevancy searching is horrible. There are other very good features but the core searching is poor. They are working on it but it is very poor indeed. One word titles, with subfields are impossible to find. Publication dates should be a part of relevancy. The staff is doing their best to improve it but they seem to be missing what libraries' patrons want in a search. So, this was difficult to fill out this year. Overall I'd give enterprise an 8 or 9 and I'd give Enterprise a 2 in searching and an 8 in special features. I hope that helps. (Type: Consortium)

SirsiDynix Symphony needs a new public interface/OPAC. Without having to buy a new product. (Type: Academic)

We are generally happy with the direction that Sirsidynix is taking with BlueCloud, however the aging symphony (formerly Unicorn) legacy backend is an ongoing pain point. That said, I don't think that any of the major players, which I guess means evergreen and the Innovative - Sierra and Polaris platforms, are significantly better. (Type: Consortium)

SirsiDynix Symphony is a good, robust LMS but Sirsi have been slow to provide developments in Electronic Resources Management for the system. (Type: Academic)

We are migrating to Evergreen in March 2015 via the [...] . Equinox will provide hosting, training, and support. (Type: Public)

The rollout of Enterprise has been a disaster from which we may have a very difficult recovery. That recovery may involve moving away from SirsiDynix. (Type: Consortium)

As part of [...] , this will be a consortium decision. Please note customer satisfaction marks are for Sirsi and not the local TLN staff. We receive excellent customer service from our cooperative. (Type: Public)

We have noticed a significant improvement in customer support but becoming more concerned about testing, release and implementation of new products associated with the "BLUEcloud" suite. (Type: Consortium)

We upgraded our service tier to "Platinum" and migrated the database from ISAM to SQL. A year ago we launched eRC. We have invested time and effort in almost everything SirsiDynix has to offer. (Type: Public)

SirsiDynix has gotten too expensive. Blue Cloud is coming out too slowly. (Type: Academic)

Symphony is a perfectly fine print management system. The majority of our budget goes to e-resources. There's a disconnect between what we need from an ILS, and what's being provided. (Type: Academic)

SirsiDynix has an unfortunate habit of releasing products to market before they have been thoroughly tested for errors and compatibility issues. This has been happening for several years and there are now a number of problems with its electronic resource connector tools. They have billed customers to correct bugs in their own Symphony software. When questions are asked of the vendor related to compatibility, functionality, adherence to privacy legislation, etc, often vague or inaccurate responses are provided. We would prefer to deal with a company that is honest about its products and pricing, even if there are shortcomings. (Type: Public)

We are particularly interested in vendors who incorporate discovery as part of ILS and vendors who are looking at different pricing models for purchase and maintenance. (Type: Academic)

[...] (Type: Public)

This ILS vendor was badly hurt by profit-squeezing tactics by its owners from about 2005 to 2011. Their performance the past couple of years has been much improved, but they have lost ground and market share, making us wonder if we will be forced to change at some point. (Type: Public)

I would say that Symphony is an average ILS, but the reporting tool is not sufficient. (Type: Academic)

Nothing to comment on. Very satisfied with our current system. (Type: Public)

Sirsi Dynix works well and is provided at a cheaper consortium price to public and school community libraries in South Australia. Spydus Civica was a better product but did cost more as we were in a small network. (Type: Public)

Being part of a Consortia tends to limit independent decision making. For example if there is a stong enough push by a group of libraries to change protocols, all other libraries within the consortia are expected to follow suit despite not agreeing to the initial request. (Type: Public)

Support is very good, SirsiDynix is very progressive in utilizing the system for more than just a catalogue and moving to the cloud to eliminate local issues. (Type: Government Agency)

The reports module on Sirsi/Dynix Symphony is very unreliable. (Type: Public)

I am of the opinion that now is the time to explore ILS open source. (Type: Public)

We are generally happy with the vendor but are pushing some of the boundaries of functionality - e.g automatic renewal function being purchased as custom work. (Type: Academic)

Generally happy with Symphony except for antiquated reporting functionality & output. We don't use Symphony to manage electronic resources. (Type: Special)

Development of the eRC should not be only focusing on public libraries but other types of libraries too such as government and other specialized libraries. ERMS should have a more extensive kbase offering a lot more from pure science, social sciences, law content, in the formats of ebooks and ejournals. Knowlegbase or vendor partnership seems to be focusing on public libraries right now. Therefore the offering of eRC to our clients as it stands is not so relevant for them. (Type: Law)

Where SIRSI excels in its new BLUEcloud Suite, its telephone system (SVA) for phone account interaction and for autodialing patrons with holds requests dismal. Attention needs to be given to this system. I am seeing software and service improvements from SIRSI at rates far greater than past years. They have a good vision in place to remain viable in the ILS industry for the long haul. (Type: Public)

Trying buy and upgrade as we can afford it (Type: Public)

Magale Library has only had our new ILS one full year and we LOVE it. The consortium cloud association is absolutely GREAT! (Type: Academic)

We are in the midst of transitioning to Alma/Primo. GoLive is scheduled for early January. (Type: Academic)

We are about to study the possibility to go for an open source ILS, for this we are preparing for a research and experiment project (for~ 3 years validity) in order to make a clear scientific decision (Type: Academic)

Support are exemplary. I really cannot fault them. Library Relations manager is excellent and it's great to have a monthly catch up with the company, product development etc. They involve their customers in the product development cycle - I am on the Strategic Partnership Program for several developments I want to influence. They may be slow catching up with the other vendors' offerings but I trust that what they are developing will actually work for us because we are helping design it. (Type: Academic)

We are part of the[...] so we don't usually deal directly with the vendor so some of these questions don't apply to us. Thanks Marshall! (Type: Public)

SirsiDynix is not particularly responsive to product development or enhancement in the APAC market - is very focused on its North American market. (Type: Public)

Our ILS is managed by a state wide consortium. All 23 counties participate, with some additional school libraries, community colleges etc. We do not have the ability to chose or implement our own ILS. (Type: Public)

Il est très difficile de trouver un SIGB gérant bien les notices d'autorité et un OPAC exploitant bien les renvois dans ces notices d'autorité. Difficile également de trouver SIGB intégrant un outil complet de gestion des ressources électroniques ("Electronic Resource Manager" ERM) en particulier pour la gestion des contrats, des conditions d'accès, etc. (Type: Academic)

We will be looking at implementing SiriDynix BLUEcloud Marketplace as our discovery interface in the future. (Type: Academic)

We need to stabilize expenses over time (a not-for-profit company is desirable); to reduce the amount of specialized in-house knowledge needed for the ILS and Discovery (OSs and multiple platforms); to license a product that is being actively and vigorously developed to incorporate new standards (expenses of modernizing legacy products is a big stumbling block); and last but not least, to provide our users a seamless and integrated user experience with all aspects of library holdings, whether books, ebooks, articles, ILL, media, or whatever. We could buy at great expense all that SirsiDynix offers, and still still be waiting for them to deliver on promises of functionalities that WMS already delivers or will deliver in the near future. (Type: Academic)

The company, it's support staff and the ILS product are too rigid. I think the company is too busy coming up with "extras" and they have lost sight of their main product, doing only a mediocre job at keeping it updated and relevant. (Type: Public)

Vendor support from ILS product is going the same way as all vendor support seemingly as gone in the recent years, way down. Sales staff continue to make promises that the product cannot yet deliver and very little care is taken in any transaction. We feel our ILS vendor takes a great amount of money for support but hardly wants to know what we need and expect. (Type: Public)

SirsiDynix has been slow to migrate functionality into Enterprise, their OPAC discovery layer. Many features expected as standard, like the ability to place ILL and purchase requests, have not yet been included. Other areas have been gradually improving. (Type: Public)

Regarding company satisfaction, keeping annual maintenance increases at a minimum would be appreciated due to budget restrictions. (Type: Medical)

We are very encouraged by the development of SirsiDynix's BLUEcloud products. We believe that this is the direction that they should be going and we are seeing continued progress in this area. We are excited about the products already under development or on the roadmap. We especially appreciate being involved through its SPP (Strategic Partner Program) Being able to give our input as to what we want in a system is a fantastic opportunity. (Type: Academic)

As we are severely understaffed, we aren't really able to consider a change. (Type: Academic)

We have found that SirsiDynix has become more responsive to its customer base in the last couple years. They have made a concerted effort to involve customers and gather input early in the development cycle to shape new products, new modules, based on customer needs. Instead of "here's our finished new product, what do you think?", the new model is "here's the direction we're heading, here are some wireframes of what we're thinking it will look like, what do you think?" (Type: Consortium)

[...] (Type: Public)

thank you (Type: Public)

As with many ILS vendors, it seems like product release dates are set by the marketing department and not the developers. The latest 'update' to their Enterprise discovery layer has provten to be particularly buggy.latest 'update' to their Enterprise discovery layer has provten to be particularly buggy. (Type: Public)

Primary difficulty with ILS is minimal implementation of available functionality by library system. i.e. ILS could provide functionality needed by library system. Library system simply has not implemented needed functionality from ILS. It is causing a review of available systems -- possible migration. (Type: Law)

On the topic of the discovery layer, within our libraries, not all, but several branches have severe Internet bandwidth constraints. Even after adjusting router prioritization in favor of the Enterprise Discovery layer, it is an extremely slow search and retrieval experience within those branches. For this reason, the full deployment of the discovery layer awaits significant bandwidth upgrades. As such, the discovery layer is not high profile and we are calling it Beta. SirsiDynix eRC for presenting econtent (from OverDrive and others) into Enterprise has been fraught with slowdowns also. We have not inserted our eRC into the currently launched Beta profile. While this should not reflect negatively on the vendor, it does bring to light the difficulties and limitations in bringing up network-intensive products with limited network resources. We do fault the vendor for not presenting system requirements for network connectivity for our Enterprise set-up. This experience, combined with our observation of slowdowns and unavailability with BlueCloud Admin (used to administer eRC (eResource Central) has us wondering about the wisdom of embracing the SD BLUEcloud suite. (Type: Public)

In mid 2013 we joined a newly-created cloud-based consortium that was planned to cover a number of libraries in our TAFE sector. In the event, we were tacked on to an existing cloud instance of Symphony belonging to a much smaller institution than us. We have had nothing but trouble since then. Basically SirsiDynix did not understand that we wanted our LMS to appear to all our clients and staff as quite independent of the other TAFE institution. Attempts to make our system function as well as it used to have only had limited success. I think that Symphony is not well suited to a consortium of the type that we wanted. (Type: Academic)

Sirsi has great support. Sirsi's costs are high, but the support is great. As a large library with a talented and experienced IT staff we are repeatedly frustrated by Sirsi's inability to allow our inhouse staff to do installations and maintenance. Sirsi's installation instructions contain errors that prevent the instructions from being successfully followed. Sirsi techs know which instructions to skip or do the opposite but that knowledge is not used to correct the installation documents. (Type: Academic)

We're tired of the "if it's a useful feature, let's charge extra for it" business model that SirsiDynix and other vendors employ. Things like APIs and web services should be part of the base installation, not outrageously-priced annual maintenance add-ons. So much of our data require API access to extract, which amounts to paying SirsiDynix annual maintenance to store our data, then paying additional maintenance to extract it. We're sick of being extorted. (Type: Academic)

A lot of stagnation in what is available vs what could be done. It is time for vendors to invest lest in keeping old products running and starting from scratch with some future proof products. (Type: State)

Not very responsive to our needs. Heavily focused on the United States e.g. in NZ we need much better financial accounting and reporting as we have rental items and overdue charges. Also the software is VERY dated now, has no flexibility and is extremely clumsy when trying to apply current expectations. One example of this is using online registration where we still can't add a cellphone number. Lots of promises, but little delivered. (Type: Public)

Cloud-based and integrated (really truly integrated) are on our priority list. (Type: Academic)

At this time, our [...] system is working great and Sirsi Dynix will be doing an upgrade in the near future. Our branch library in [...]is in the plan to change to the automated system in 2015. The number of items reflects both libraries. (Type: Public)

I answered questions about customer service as straight 5s, because I haven't used SirsiDynix customer service directly. I have used their training platform. I appreciate the quantity of information it includes and the various options for accessing it. However, I wish it were more broadly accessible to staff and easier to navigate. The number of items listed in our collection is much larger this year, but I've included electronic resources that we subscribe to, which I hadn't before. (Type: State)

Compared to other service fields, libraries are far behind in the technology we can offer our patrons to access the information we offer. We still make it so difficult for them to use our databases, our downloadable audio & e-books, and our online catalogs. (Type: Public)

We are satisfied with Symphony-SirsiDynix. We currently have the small library subscription which is pretty much turn-key. It functions well but the reports can be confusing. There are also several add-on features that cost more and while they would be nice additions, we cannot afford them at this time. This includes products like Director's Station, Serials, etc. (Type: Public)

We are part of a consortium and our ILS is a hosted SaaS implementation in year 5 of a 7 year contract. We will begin looking at vendors on the next year or so. (Type: Public)

System and data security is another area where our current ILS is not keeping up with industry standard. Alma vendor uses Gartner recommended security standards for it's cloud. Our security requirements are imposed by our parent organization. (Type: Special)

One issue I have with Sirsi/Dynix's service model is the "around the campfire" approach they take to handling calls. You speak to one person who makes notes based on his or her level of experience and knowledge of the product and the issue being described. These notes are forwarded to another person who then suggests a course of action based on THEIR level of experience and knowledge of the product and the understand they have achieved from reading the notes. If there is any level of cognitive dissonance in the notes, the recommendation may be (and has been) flawed. Note taking is a dying skill, as is reading with comprehension. (Type: School)

Having worked with this company's product for over 18 years the biggest issue that continues to haunt this company is rolling out products that are not ready for production. Also there is a huge delay in fixing much needed enhancement requests and bug issues. For example, the timeline of when their Social Library product will be visible on Mobile Devices. I will have to wait until at least July of next year before it will work for 50% of the audience we are trying to reach. (Type: Public)

I wasn't employed at my current institution when the most recent ILS was implemented, so I'm unable to answer that question. (Type: Academic)

SirsiDynix, while a good vendor overall has some problems with internal communication, and use of technical vocabularies. They seem to have a habit of misusing terms that have specific meanings, or inventing terms for things that already have established names in the technology / library sector. (Type: Academic)

Are are now in the SirsiDynix cloud with its SaaS product. We were very pleased with the migration and the problem-free functionality. (Type: Public)

[...] (Type: Public)

We have been a customer of Dynix since 1986 and so far, our customer support services have been excellent. Since we have such a small staff, implementing an open source ILS is unlikely at this time. (Type: Academic)

Symphony is a very stable product. We are now a hosted site and the support we have received has been excellent. The philosophy of the organization is very customer oriented and there are several programs in place to ensure our voice is heard while they are developing new products so that the end product better meets our needs. They are working very hard to stay ahead of the ever-changing face of libraries by offering new products while continuing to improve their core products. (Type: Public)

We went live with Enterprise in September, switching from Bibliocommons. It has been a nightmare, patrons are angry, staff and library boards are upset. It is almost as if we were the first libraries to get it, but that it not the case. It's been a disaster, crashing, not showing correct information, having to be rebooted. This is the 4th month now, and things are still going on, not stable. (Type: Public)

[...] which we belong decided on SirsiDynix. (Type: Public)

The state library handles all interactions with the vendor as the system is implemented state-wide. We occasionally provide feedback but do not have decision-making power. (Type: Public)

Would love to have a user friendly reporting system. (Type: Public)

They make many promises of new functionality that never transpires (Type: Public)

We are currently in the process of and/or discussing the addition of many new products offered by SirsiDynix Blue Cloud which may affect some of our perceptions in the future. (Type: Public)

currently considering migration to another, academic-based ILS in conjunction with other academic libraries in Montana. (Type: Academic)

Costly for smaller institutions. Expected to pay for enhanced functionality. (Type: Academic)

SirsiDynix have a bad habit of over promising and under delivering. Their new suite of Bluecloud products is too little too late and is taking too long to deliver, and imposes too many constraints on how we operate. Symphony feels old, tired and cludgy, and the Acquisitions and Serials modules are close to unusable. Not to mention the almost nonexistent support for electronic resources in the core product, followed up by the almost exclusive focus on ebooks rather than ejournals in the bluecloud suite... We would probably go elsewhere if we had the time and money to migrate. Support staff are helpful and friendly, but we don't want a relationship with them, we want a product that works! (Type: Academic)

Intota Discovery (Summon) and Assessment are seen as an interim low-cost solution to replace the Endeca UI over the next three years. We have been unable to secure funding to carry out a comprehensive review of library systems with a view to replacing the LMS and linked services. Externally hosted ('cloud') options will be seriously considered as part of a future review. Initial impressions are that Assessment will offer little or nothing more than current MetaLib and SFX services, which will also be superseded along with MetaLib Plus, for eresources management and discovery. (Type: Academic)

BlueCloud additions will breathe new life into SirsiDynix's Symphony product. (Type: Public)

We currently have BiblioCommons implemented as a discovery layer and are actively considering switching to an online catalogue offered by the ILS vendor instead. We are interested in learning more about the BLUEcloud modules from our vendor, as these become available. (Type: Public)

Local support for sirsi dynix implemented in 2013, this was done to improve turnaround for faults or developments. Also, local company had necessary expertise to move to a separate dut instance of symphony - a move from consortial based system. Previous support via uk based sirsi dynix (Type: Academic)

The number of titles includes print and electronic. It includes periodical titles, but not individual electronic issues. It also includes 9 database subscriptions. We have Sirsi Symphony through a consortium or we would never have been able to afford it. The issue is we are a medium-sized library with NO IT staff and it is very time-consuming as the intricacies of the program are no overly user-friendly which has caused much frustration. We are going to begin using the Cloud Reports feature which may make things better, but I cannot say if that is true at this point. (Type: Public)

Support issues are directed to [...] in the [...] . [...] either rectify the issue or forward it onto SirsiDynix support. [...] consortium libraries do not have any direct contact with the vendor. (Type: Public)

Even though scores above are mid-range, I'm not sure we'd be any happier with other vendor products. (Type: Consortium)

Would like to see a mobile workstation (circulation, inventory) that would work on device of our choice instead of being restricted to the hand held device that they required us to purchase - very expensive, small screen. The ability to load WorkFlows onto a tablet would be much cheaper. (Type: Academic)

We have been with SirsiDynix for 14 years and it has worked very well. We also went through a migration last year when our law school was acquired by another university. The migration was relatively painless and everyone was very helpful along the way. My sales rep and all of the employees are very easy to work with, very nice, and very professional!! (Type: Law)

I left a couple of spots blank because I do not know about the specific terms of the contract with our ILS on whether an open source ILS is something our network would consider. (Type: Public)

[...] (Type: Public)

As with any automation company, there are highs and lows in expectations. We appreciate that SIrsiDynix is a robust, large company which appears to be prioritize being responsive to its customers. The implementation of new or enhanced products seems to take a long time at times. Support is quite good with quick response times. The company certainly does business with a wide range of library types. (Type: Public)

2.5 years ago we pulled out of a consortium that was going to migrate to OCLC WMS. We wished to stay with SirsiDynix Symphony, opting to migrate to their SAAS option. (Type: Academic)

More than 2/3rds of the items in the collection are digital or only accessible online. (Type: Public)

While SirsiDynix is not great, it is the best of the available options. SaaS is one of the most important parts of our ILS, and it has provided great value and functionality for our library system. (Type: Public)

[...] (Type: Public)

Generally feel that our system is ok but not great - it is not always flexible enough to meet our needs and can be challenging to get things working correctly. Open source is interesting but we don't really have the staff resources to support it. (Type: Public)

Symphony is built on very old indexing technology that is difficult to manage. (Type: Academic)

While the current Symphony ILS is inadequate for our current and future needs, we are optimistic that SirsiDynix'x developments with the BlueCloud suite of products will get us closer to our vision. At the same time, we are encouraged by the collaboration that has begun between EBSCO and SirsiDynix, and would love to see that we would be able to integrate the two products into a fully-featured and scalable library services platform. (Type: Academic)

We went through an RFI last year to review ILS products on the market. Because of the recent merger/acquisition of Innovative and Polaris and because we saw no drastic differences between products we have decided to stay with SirsiDynix for the next 3-5 years. (Type: Public)

Some of the developments that we would like to implement have additional costs (e.g. reporting, statistical tools). A lot of the functionality of forthcoming BlueCloud products has an additional cost. Not easy to do work on custom reports as the training for APIs is expensive - compared to other systems where it comes with the product. Difficult to customise the OPAC, set-up is quite prescriptive. (Type: Museum)

ILS