Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for WorldShare Management Services


2017 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction139 2 1 2 3 6 12 34 45 23 11 76.477
ILS Functionality139 2 1 3 4 4 18 25 38 36 8 76.487
Print Functionality137 1 2 4 6 12 11 34 42 25 87.047
Electronic Functionality136 2 1 4 2 9 10 27 38 30 13 76.517
Company Satisfaction138 2 1 2 3 3 14 26 36 28 23 76.787
Support Satisfaction139 3 1 3 3 2 15 23 35 33 21 76.737
Support Improvement136 4 2 4 16 32 24 18 23 13 55.966
Company Loyalty135 6 3 4 5 3 19 12 26 26 31 96.477
Open Source Interest138 53 18 21 10 10 13 3 2 2 6 02.151

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS141 107.09%
Considering new Interface141 96.38%
System Installed on time?141 12588.65%

Average Collection size: 369326

TypeCount
Public1
Academic79
School2
Consortia0
Special4

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00048
[3] 100,001-250,00034
[4] 250,001-1,000,00043
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00010
[6] over 10,000,0010



2016 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction134 2 1 3 5 4 9 20 40 33 17 76.727
ILS Functionality134 1 2 4 5 5 11 18 43 34 11 76.577
Print Functionality135 1 2 1 1 8 20 30 50 22 87.268
Electronic Functionality133 3 2 2 7 6 12 18 35 38 10 86.457
Company Satisfaction135 1 5 3 4 7 20 25 43 27 87.068
Support Satisfaction134 1 2 5 2 3 7 17 29 43 25 87.018
Support Improvement128 2 1 6 7 29 11 17 23 32 96.637
Company Loyalty133 7 2 4 1 4 13 7 19 32 44 96.928
Open Source Interest132 56 24 21 6 4 8 7 2 1 3 01.751

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS135 85.93%
Considering new Interface135 85.93%
System Installed on time?135 12794.07%

Average Collection size: 350815

TypeCount
Public4
Academic102
School1
Consortia0
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,00050
[3] 100,001-250,00034
[4] 250,001-1,000,00039
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0008
[6] over 10,000,0010



2015 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction94 2 1 2 10 12 28 30 9 86.947
ILS Functionality94 2 2 3 7 9 19 23 20 9 76.437
Print Functionality94 2 1 8 14 24 29 16 87.177
Electronic Functionality93 3 1 1 6 11 15 20 29 7 86.587
Company Satisfaction94 2 1 3 3 12 20 34 19 87.318
Support Satisfaction93 3 1 6 3 14 17 31 18 87.088
Support Improvement89 1 2 9 18 14 16 14 15 56.427
Company Loyalty92 2 1 1 4 5 4 6 17 22 30 97.138
Open Source Interest92 45 17 14 2 1 5 3 2 3 01.511

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS95 33.16%
Considering new Interface95 44.21%
System Installed on time?95 8993.68%

Average Collection size: 424304

TypeCount
Public2
Academic75
School1
Consortia0
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00024
[3] 100,001-250,00031
[4] 250,001-1,000,00022
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00010
[6] over 10,000,0010



2014 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction72 1 1 2 1 3 10 28 22 4 76.887
ILS Functionality71 1 2 3 8 12 31 11 3 76.517
Print Functionality70 1 1 1 4 8 15 33 7 87.218
Electronic Functionality70 1 1 1 7 10 20 23 7 86.937
Company Satisfaction71 1 2 1 1 6 15 34 11 87.398
Support Satisfaction71 2 1 3 8 19 18 20 97.448
Support Improvement69 2 2 13 9 14 17 12 86.867
Company Loyalty73 1 1 1 2 1 4 15 23 25 97.598
Open Source Interest71 36 15 3 9 4 1 2 1 01.280

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS74 34.05%
Considering new Interface74 68.11%
System Installed on time?74 6689.19%

Average Collection size: 444490

TypeCount
Public4
Academic56
School1
Consortia0
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00024
[3] 100,001-250,00018
[4] 250,001-1,000,00013
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0008
[6] over 10,000,0010



2013 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction31 2 1 5 2 10 6 5 76.777
ILS Functionality31 3 3 2 4 5 8 3 3 75.816
Print Functionality30 1 1 2 4 2 6 8 6 86.807
Electronic Functionality31 1 2 4 2 1 7 8 6 86.687
Company Satisfaction30 1 5 3 3 8 10 97.378
Support Satisfaction31 1 1 4 4 7 7 7 77.007
Support Improvement31 1 10 3 4 7 6 56.777
Company Loyalty30 1 1 1 4 1 2 7 13 97.338
Open Source Interest30 15 3 1 4 2 4 1 01.701

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS32 13.13%
Considering new Interface32 13.13%
System Installed on time?32 2475.00%

Average Collection size: 260399

TypeCount
Public2
Academic25
School1
Consortia0
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,0005
[3] 100,001-250,00013
[4] 250,001-1,000,0006
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0002
[6] over 10,000,0010



2012 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction21 1 1 2 1 2 7 6 1 76.387
ILS Functionality21 2 2 1 4 4 5 1 2 75.486
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction21 2 1 1 1 1 2 8 5 86.768
Support Satisfaction21 2 3 1 1 4 3 7 96.627
Support Improvement20 1 1 2 2 1 5 2 6 96.707
Company Loyalty21 2 1 1 4 5 8 96.958
Open Source Interest21 4 6 3 2 1 3 1 1 12.522

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS22 00.00%
Considering new Interface22 00.00%
System Installed on time?22 1777.27%

Average Collection size: 316875

TypeCount
Public0
Academic21
School0
Consortia0
Special0

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0006
[3] 100,001-250,0009
[4] 250,001-1,000,0004
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010



2011 Survey Results
Product: WorldShare Management Services Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction10 2 4 3 1 77.107
ILS Functionality10 1 1 2 2 3 1 75.205
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction10 1 2 1 6 98.209
Support Satisfaction10 1 1 3 5 98.209
Support Improvement9 2 1 2 4 97.568
Company Loyalty10 1 1 3 5 98.009
Open Source Interest10 5 3 2 00.701

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS10 00.00%
Considering new Interface10 00.00%
System Installed on time?10 990.00%

Average Collection size: 392232

TypeCount
Public0
Academic9
School0
Consortia0
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0002
[3] 100,001-250,0003
[4] 250,001-1,000,0002
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0001
[6] over 10,000,0010


0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2010

0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2009

0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2008

0 Responses for WorldShare Management Services in 2007

2017 : gen: 6.47 company 6.78 loyalty 6.47 support 6.73

2016 : gen: 6.72 company 7.06 loyalty 6.92 support 7.01

2015 : gen: 6.94 company 7.31 loyalty 7.13 support 7.08

2014 : gen: 6.88 company 7.39 loyalty 7.59 support 7.44

2013 : gen: 6.77 company 7.37 loyalty 7.33 support 7.00

2012 : gen: 6.38 company 6.76 loyalty 6.95 support 6.62

2011 : gen: 7.10 company 8.20 loyalty 8.00 support 8.20

Comments

We think WMS will be a first-class product when it is fully developed. We were aware of the level of development when we implemented with our consortium, which has been instrumental in the testing and improvement of WMS functionality. We are happy with our consortium's choice of this ILS, and we anticipate a continued positive relationship with the vendor. (Type: Academic)

At first OCLC seemed to have rushed into signing libraries up for WMS and was unable to handle the amount of support tickets they were generating. The seemed to quickly realize that they needed more support people and got some which was good. However, many of them didn't know the system as well as they should. Things continue to improve and my questions are always eventually answered. (Type: Theology)

OCLC's master records are used in the process by which our holdings are ftped to our discovery service, EDS. OCLC did not mask or filter out entries into the master record like TOCs from LoC, or urls in the master record from OCLC's own ECO or even urls from an institution with its own proxying url. However, OCLC could mask such "noise" in the OPAC display. Our discovery service provider figured out how to mask such erroneous and unwanted information. (Type: Academic)

WMS functionality has improved tremendously in the past two years, and some of the issues we had are not issues anymore, as they have been fixed. We have been pleased with the improvements in support (more thorough follow-through and remediation of the problem). Reports were a weakness, looks like these are finally coming along and are very easy to use. (Type: Academic)

For a small rural library with a frighteningly small budget, WorldShare has enabled us to provide online access to patrons from their home with easy links to the State Library e-resources. (Type: Public)

As more libraries subscribe to WMS, the product requires more from OCLC to adequately maintain it. Subscribing libraries need to see it as a cooperative with member advisers. (Type: Academic)

Total from last survey did not represent all electronic items. Reporting mechanism changed and now reports on that #, which is why the huge difference from last year to this year. (Type: Academic)

We like the cleanness of WMS (very easy to learn to new staff, especially students). We like the ideas OCLC has about the 'worldshare' future. We like the fact that the system is hosted and does not bring any support-issues (incl. downtime) or -cost with it. We like the promises of collection manager, vendor management etc. What was a disappointment was the lack of functionality especially regarding the management of e-resources and the responsiveness of OCLC-USA to 'Dutch' questions, although we were a launching customer for Europe. The Dutch branche tries its best, but seems to have not enough of a foothold at HQ in Ohio. There are quite severe issues also with matching & merging that need to be sorted out as well as with handling of multiple copies (e.g. for students in open stacks, but also in the depot), where WMS cannot make a proper distinction. After accepting WMS we had to *increase* staff effort, instead of decrease. This has leveled off by now, but we are not yet able to harvest on workflow optimisation etc. We were probably a bit early and WMS was definitely not ready for reality in a (European) academic library. We did manage to make interfaces with our IDm and financial (SAP) system, though. So we more or less 'forced' WMS into modality. (Type: Academic)

Customer support is great when the issue can be solved easily but if the vendor doesn't have a solution, it may take weeks before we hear back from the vendor. there needs to be a better follow-through process. (Type: Academic)

We are part of the beta testing for the next version and feel that our suggestions are valued and acted on. (Type: School)

OCLC WorldShare Management Services is still developing all the services and support to be a great ILS. The cost of WMS makes having a cutting edge ILS and discovery interface possible when other vendors are charging way too much for add-ons that should be part of a normal ILS. (Type: Academic)

The OCLC WMS product with WCL/WCD, KB and AtoZ resolver has worked as expected, but we were negatively surprised at how OCLC migrated Serial records to the product. This appears to be due at least in part to the cloud based nature of this LSP (your term Mr. Breeding). Migrated serials holdings were input in order of earliest items from our old ILS, with no option for switch OR notification that this was to be expected. Worse yet the ongoing check-ins present issues based on the source of the data input by the 1st library to check in the issue for a title. In addition the limitations of Acquisitions and Inventory are glaring. No true inventory function is available (doesn't seem to be on their Roadmap rollout chart). As far as we can tell no direct ordering is possible via WMS using recognized library vendors/partners. Finally the most telling issue with support for the product has been the triage via OCLC general support (even if the WMS support email is used). The 'frontline' technical support staff respond, take messages, communicate internally with WMS product specialists and reply to us after consultation. This creates some challenges in terms of timely responses and things 'falling thru the cracks'. The staff are all polite and have good general product knowledge re WMS/WCL/KB, but when we initiate a call with Tech Support it’s because we’ve encountered an issue that we couldn’t resolve thru reviewing product literature or examining our current configuration. Therefore the type of help we need is beyond the abilities of frontline support staff. We are grateful for the introduction of online ‘office hours’ for WMS modules (e.g. KB & WCD). OCLC has also solicited feedback re WMS via emails requesting survey participation. It’s clear the WMS product is BETA, but I remain satisfied that it was our library’s best option given the legacy status of our old ILS (Sirsi/Dynix Unicorn- NOT Enterprise) and our budget limitations. We are a library that did NOT save any $ through the switch to WMS. However, we did gain additional technology resources (discovery product, acquisitions module, branch library component) through a relatively modest increase in spending for our automation platform. My colleagues are probably less enthusiastic and the Sept/Oct 2014 Technicalities article by David Banush brings up the ways that flaws of discovery based automation products actually are a dis service to effective Reference and resource management. (Type: Academic)

With WorldShare our users have the ability to search a discovery database that contains over 7 million records and that number continues to grow. (Type: Special)

We have been live with WMS for several months now, and are pleased with the basic functionality post-implementation (circ, KB, metadata). With incremental developments in Acquisitions and Analytics released, I feel the system will be much more robust than it is currently. But I do feel WMS is closely matched to our automation needs. (Type: Academic)

Plan to migrate to WorldCat Discovery in summer 2015 (Type: )

We will be in production with WMS in Dec. 2014. Support comments relate primarily to the migration process, which has been excellent. Our timing was good with respect to print resource management as Record Manager was released before we started and seems to be coming along nicely. (Type: Academic)

“The ILS that our library is using at the moment is WMS, OCLC´s software. It covers most of the library needs. Even if some modules are still under development, the system is upgraded every three months, adding features that improve the ILS quality. WMS is user friendly and easy to use. Ever since we have started working with WMS the library´s workflows are much better and we save lot of time. Last year, thanks to local support staff recruitment, the resolution of incidents has improved notably.” (Type: )

Additional 700,000 ebooks available thanks to the open source integration in the knowledegbase (Type: Academic)

We went live on WMS only 1 1/2 months ago. Thus far, we have been very impressed with the support we have received. There are definitely functions that we miss from our old ILS, but we knew that would likely be the case. Living without some functionality is OK, but other missing functionality is highly frustrating. (Type: Academic)

[...] Library just migrated from SirsiDynix Workflows to OCLC WMS earlier this year in Spring 2014. The migration and implementation process had a few bumps but OCLC's implementation manager was helpful and responsive. Currently, we have been live with WMS for 6 months. We have experienced several service outages and continuous bugs/issues with WMS. OCLC customer support is responsive, however most of the time when the issue is reported there is no resolution. Often there will be no resolution for months until OCLC implements system updates. It is good that OCLC continues to improve WMS but we really would like to see the improvements faster than waiting for months. Currently, the main issue we are experiencing with WMS that is inadequate is their statistics report which is often missing, inaccurate data or just plain confusing because the reports/data are stored in so many different places. Overall, WMS provided more functionality to support our collection management and circulation than SirsiDynix Workflows. Therefore, in comparison, though WMS is not working perfectly, it is still better than our old ILS and the customer support with OCLC is much responsive than SirsiDynix. (Type: Academic)

too early to say, we did not implement it yet (Type: Academic)

WMS is a nice, concise ILS. It is usually intuitive and new features and enhancements are added quarterly. We are in the process of evaluating WorldCat Discovery as we will be switching from WorldCat Local to Discovery in 2015. Currently, there are one or two hiccups. When there are similar e- and print resources in Discovery, the print seem to disappear. (WorldCat Local is similar but the print does appear in fewer steps.) Other than that, Discovery has a responsive web design, which will be crucial for us to better to reach our students. (Type: Academic)

As stated in a note above we just have finished migrating to WMS. We don't have a great deal of experience with the system yet, so I feel my answers are based more on our migration experience rather than actual use of the system. (Type: Academic)

Our previous vendor, offered us an expensive package of "exit services" consisting of functions that they had not charged for in the past to my knowledge. These services were to extract marc and local holdings info together, but I was able to largely duplicate them in excel and marcedit. (Type: Academic)

We are currently in the process of migrating to OCLC's WorldShare Management System from Ex Libris's Voyager ILS, and so can't speak as to our satisfaction with the system itself. However, our experience with customer support as we go through the migration progress has been excellent. (Type: Theology)

ILS