Perceptions 2012: An International Survey of Library Automation

by Marshall Breeding. January 21, 2013

Launch the interactive version of the survey's statistical results

Introduction

This sixth annual Library Automation Perceptions Report provides evaluative ratings submitted by individuals representing over three thousand libraries from 67 countries describing experiences with 139 different automation products, including both proprietary and open source systems. The survey results include 679 narrative comments providing candid statements -- both positive and negative – about the products and companies involved or statements of intent regarding future automation plans. This report analyzes the results of the survey, presents a variety of statistical tables based on the data collected, and provides some initial observations. It aims to provide information to libraries as they evaluate their options for strategic technology products and to the organizations involved in providing these products and services as constructive criticism to help guide improvements.

Previous editions: 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007.

Libraries make major investments in strategic automation products, both during the initial implementation period and in annual fees paid for support, software maintenance, and other services. They depend on these products for efficient management of their daily operations and to provide access to their collections and services. This survey report allows libraries to benefit from the perceptions of their peers regarding the quality of automation systems and of the performance of the organizations involved in their development or support.

Libraries in immediate need of replacing their current system, or in the process of making longer term technology strategies, benefit from data across a variety of sources as they assess options. Technical documentation, marketing materials, product demonstrations, product vision statements and functionality checklists represent some sources of information to help libraries evaluate automation products. The vendor community naturally provides information and materials that presents their products in positive terms.

Another important avenue of investigation involves data from libraries with first-hand experience of the products and vendors. This survey aims to measure the perceptions libraries hold regarding their current automation products, the companies that support them and to capture their intentions about future migration options. It also explores interest in open source library automation systems, a key issue for the industry. Though its large number of responses, the survey aggregates the subjective experience of many libraries to create meaningful results, reasonably informative about the collective experience of libraries with this set of products and companies.

Current issues

Recent years have seen the emergence of a new generation of automation products, Library Services Platforms, which break away from many of the characteristics of the traditional integrated library system. These products include Alma from Ex Libris, WorldShare Management Services from OCLC, Sierra from Innovative Interfaces, Intota from Serials Solutions and the open source Kuali OLE project. This edition of the survey gives an early look into these new products. Two of these products, Sierra and WorldShare Management Services have entered their implementation phase and are represented in survey responses. 91 libraries using Sierra and 21 using WorldShare Management Services responded to the survey. These products, early in their adoption and development history, generally received mid-level scores. Sierra earned second highest ratings (7.07) for completeness of functionality given by academic libraries. WorldShare Management Services received lower ratings in this category (5.65). We can also see how these new systems fare in the thinking of libraries through their indications of systems under consideration for future migrations. The library services platforms were often mentioned as potential candidates by those libraries considering migrating to a new system (Alma: 121, Sierra: 120, Kuali OLE: 21, Intota: 48, and WorldShare Management Services: 99).

The churn of migration away from outdated legacy systems continues as well of libraries interested in making changes that will improve their technology infrastructure or that will lower their costs. Many libraries continue to rely on products at the end of their life cycle. Winnebago Spectrum, Follett Circulation Plus, and Athena and Dynix Classic have not been developed for many years yet remain in use in a large number of libraries. Not surprisingly, these outdated system generally received lower ratings. Now that Ex Libris has delivered Alma, many libraries using Aleph and Voyager are beginning to consider future alternatives even though the company plans to develop and support these products indefinitely. Some libraries operate systems that continue to be developed, supported, and sold, but are evaluating alternatives due to budget pressures in hopes of identifying less expensive alternatives.

Emphasis on Peer Groups

Not all libraries have the same requirements or expectations for their automation products. In previous editions, this survey report has presented results mostly in aggregate across all categories. With the increased number of responses this year, combined with the enhancement of survey responses with demographic data from each responding library from their entries in the lib-web-cats directory, results are presented more within peer groups. Separate tables are included for the key areas of ILS satisfaction and functionality completeness for public and academic libraries and according to collection size categories. These tables allow for more appropriate comparisons as libraries consider the best products and providers to meet their future automation needs. This emphasis on peer groups will enable libraries to derive more nuanced comparisons and interpretations of the results. In the amalgamated result tables, some of the products that serve very small libraries dominate as top performers overall. Stronger and weaker products emerge more clearly when considering specific demographic categories. Examples of the category combination tables available are presented below. The interactive version of the survey results dynamically assembles statistical result tables according to any combination of report category, library type and collection size.

Caveats

Some libraries may refer to the results of this survey as they formulate technology strategies or evaluate specific products. Libraries naturally should not base their decisions solely on this report. While it reflects the responses of a large number of libraries using these products, the survey should be taken more as an instrument to guide what questions that a library might bring up in their considerations than to drive any conclusions. Especially for libraries with more complex needs, it's unrealistic to expect satisfaction scores at the very top of the rankings. Large and complex libraries exercise all aspects of an automation system and at any given time may have outstanding issues that would naturally result in survey responses short of the highest marks. While a given product may earn positive responses from one sector, it may not be a good choice for libraries with different requirements.

Constructive criticism

The survey results also aims to provide useful information to the companies involved in the library automation industry. While many companies perform their own measures of client satisfaction, this survey may show perceptions in different ways. I hope that the rankings in each category and the published comments provide useful information to help each of the companies hone in on problem areas and make any needed adjustments to their support procedures or product directions.

Survey Response Demographics

While the vast majority of responses continue to come from libraries in the United States, the survey aims to address the international library automation arena. This year the survey form was offered in Spanish, translated by Nieves González, and French, Alexandre Lemaire, in addition to English. The French version was not made available until late in the response period. A higher number of responses were received from Spanish-speaking countries, including Spain (65), Argentina (17), and Uruguay (14). A total of 821 of the 3,030 total responses (27 percent) came from libraries outside the United States.

The survey received 3,030 responses, more than any previous year (2011=2,432, 2010=2,173, 2009=2,099, 2008=1,453, 2007=1,779 ). The survey was open between November 5, 2012 and January 19. 2013. Libraries of all sizes responded, including: 251 will collections over 1 million items; 1,356 with collections over 100,000; 321 with collections between 100,000 and 1,000,000; 1,543 with collections less than 100,000; 287 with collections less than 10,000; 1,235 with collections between 10,000 and 100,000. There were 96 of the 3,030 responses with no collection size data provided.

Public libraries were represented in largest numbers, with 1,531 responses, followed by academic libraries with 833. 192 responses came from school libraries.

The Demographics Report summarizes the library types, countries, and products represented in the survey results.

Selected Survey Findings

  • Polaris offered by Polaris Library Systems toped the rankings in ILS satisfaction and completeness of functionality for medium to large public libraries.
  • Apollo, developed by Biblionix topped the rankings in ILS satisfaction for small public libraries. The company earned top ratings for support across all libraries of all types (tied with OPALS). Apollo was rated by the libraries using it(exclusively small public libraries) as having the best customer support. Its functionality was rated as most complete in functionality. (again tied with OPALS)
  • Sierra, developed by Innovative Interfaces, Inc. topped the rankings in ILS satisfaction for large to medium-size academic libraries. The company's Millennium ILS was the second highest rated system for large academics. Sierra also earned the highest marks for completeness of functionality as rated by large academic libraries, again followed by Millennium.
  • OPALS, an open source ILS for school libraries and districts developed and supported by Media Flex earned top rankings in Company Satisfaction, Product Support, and Company Loyalty. School libraries using competing products, notably Destiny from Follett Software Company, did not respond to the survey in significant numbers, making it challenging to interpret the superlative performance of OPALS within its peer group.
  • 634 libraries indicated that they are considering migrating to a new ILS. Ex Libris Alma (121) and Sierra from Innovative Interfaces (120) were mentioned most frequently by libraries systems under consideration, followed by WorldShare Management Services from OCLC (99), the open source Koha ILS (71) or Evergreen (65), Symphony from SirsiDynix (51), Intota from Serials Solutions (48), and Kuali OLE (21).
  • Products that ranked highest in earlier years of the survey, including and Polaris from Polaris Library Systems, Library.Solution from The Library Corporation, AGent VERSO from Auto-Graphics, continue to receive satisfaction scores just as high as before, but fall below the superlative marks given by libraries involved with Apollo, OPALS, or Koha as supported independently or by ByWater Solutions.
  • Companies and products serving large and complex library organizations and diverse library types receive a broader range of responses, and fall into a middle tier of rankings. Yet where they fall within this middle ground represents important differences. Sierra and Millennium from Innovative Interfaces, Library.Solution from The Library Corporation, and Evergreen from Equinox Software, and came out as very strong performers at the top of this middle tier.
  • Except for the libraries already using one, the survey reflected fairly low levels of interest in migrating to an open source ILS, even when the company rates their satisfaction with their current proprietary ILS and its company as poor. Libraries using Koha, as supported by ByWater Solutions (8.21) or independently operated by the library (8.37), or OPALS (8.32) demonstrated highest interest in open source, followed by Evergreen as supported by Equinox Software (7.29). Libraries using LibLime Koha showed a softer interest in open source (6.73). Though the open source interest scores were low, a substantial portion of libraries that registered some interest in moving to a new ILS named open source products among the replacement candidates.

General Information about the Survey

The survey has been conducted annually since 2007. Previous editions continue to be available: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.

This year, the survey attracted 3,030 responses from libraries in 67 different countries. The countries most strongly represented include the United States (2,209 responses), followed by Canada (160), United Kingdom (104), Australia (104) and New Zealand (30). As with the general demographics of the lib-web-cats database, the respondents of the library primarily come from libraries in English-speaking countries. Survey results were gathered between November 14, 201 and 1January 27, 2012 (Full demographic summary).

The survey attracted 20 or more responses from libraries using:

This year saw higher representation of automation systems used mostly outside the United States, including Alto which was originally offered by Talis and acquired by Capita in March 2011, Aurora from Axiell Group based in Scandinavia, and Absys.Net from Baratz based in Madrid with clients primarily in Spain, France, Portugal, and Latin America. Many other products were represented in the survey with few number of responses. Systems with less than 15 did not appear in the main statistical tables. These responses can be seen through the individual ILS Product Reports.

This article is an original publication of Library Technology Guides and is not slated to appear in any print publication. Please direct any comments or enquiries to the author.

This survey and its analysis reflect my ongoing interest in following trends in the library automation industry. It is designed to complement the annual Automation Systems Marketplace feature that I have written since 2002 for Library Journal. The survey underlying the Library Journal article relies on information provided by the companies that offer library automation products and services. The survey that serves as the basis for this article collects data from the libraries themselves.

Survey Results: Product Satisfaction

Product Satisfaction for Medium to Large Public Libraries

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100000')

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris80 1 2 2 11 43 21 87.958 0.89
Library.Solution35 1 1 1 2 3 13 14 97.718 1.52
Sierra24 1 2 2 10 8 1 76.887 1.43
Spydus14 1 1 1 7 3 1 76.797 1.87
Millennium77 1 2 4 6 13 26 18 7 76.737 0.80
Symphony (Unicorn)113 3 5 5 15 22 36 23 4 76.377 0.28
Evergreen -- Equinox Software16 2 2 1 3 4 2 2 75.757 2.00
Horizon70 2 1 4 4 10 8 6 20 12 3 75.717 0.60
All Responses533 5 5 14 16 32 39 70 150 139 63 76.677 0.13

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.



Product Satisfaction for Small Public Libraries

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '100000')

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo113 1 1 10 23 78 98.569 0.66
Koha -- ByWater Solutions30 2 6 12 10 88.008 1.28
Polaris49 6 14 13 16 97.808 1.00
Atriuum121 1 1 4 2 10 22 36 45 97.748 0.82
AGent VERSO53 1 1 2 1 3 10 23 12 87.408 1.24
Library.Solution46 1 3 4 4 9 15 10 87.098 0.44
Spydus15 1 1 10 3 76.877 1.81
Destiny36 1 2 4 6 9 9 5 76.867 1.50
Absys.Net14 1 1 1 8 2 1 76.867 1.87
Symphony (Unicorn)83 1 2 7 7 5 2 29 18 12 76.577 0.99
Millennium27 1 1 2 1 3 4 5 6 4 86.307 1.35
LibraryWorld13 1 2 4 3 2 1 66.236 1.94
Evergreen -- Equinox Software60 7 2 2 7 5 15 16 6 86.227 1.03
Circulation Plus12 1 1 4 2 3 1 56.177 0.87
Horizon26 2 1 5 4 12 1 1 76.157 1.37
Koha -- LibLime12 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 76.087 2.02
Amlib17 1 1 2 1 4 6 2 75.766 0.97
Sierra16 1 1 7 1 4 1 1 55.755 2.00
Axiell Aurora12 3 2 1 3 3 35.086 2.02
All Responses895 8 11 12 38 33 60 80 205 213 235 97.068 0.23

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.



Product Satisfaction for all Public Libraries

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo114 1 1 11 23 78 98.549 0.66
Koha -- ByWater Solutions39 1 3 9 13 13 87.878 1.12
Polaris132 1 3 8 26 57 37 87.868 0.61
Atriuum125 1 1 4 2 11 22 38 46 97.748 0.80
Library.Solution83 2 1 3 5 6 12 28 26 87.408 0.33
AGent VERSO56 2 1 2 1 3 10 23 14 87.328 1.20
Spydus32 2 1 2 18 8 1 76.917 1.24
Destiny36 1 2 4 6 9 9 5 76.867 1.50
Libero14 1 3 4 5 1 86.867 2.14
Millennium106 1 1 3 2 5 9 17 31 24 13 76.667 0.87
Absys.Net20 2 1 4 9 3 1 76.657 1.34
Symphony (Unicorn)200 1 5 12 12 20 24 66 43 17 76.497 0.21
Sierra40 1 1 1 9 3 14 9 2 76.427 1.26
LibraryWorld13 1 2 4 3 2 1 66.236 1.94
Circulation Plus12 1 1 4 2 3 1 56.177 0.87
Evergreen -- Equinox Software77 9 4 3 7 8 19 18 9 76.167 0.91
Amlib20 1 1 2 1 4 8 3 76.007 0.89
Horizon100 2 1 4 6 11 15 10 33 13 5 75.867 0.50
Koha -- LibLime14 1 1 3 2 3 1 3 45.797 1.07
Axiell Aurora25 4 9 3 2 4 3 34.083 0.60
All Responses1466 13 16 29 59 65 105 152 362 359 306 76.897 0.24

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.



Product Satisfaction for Large Academic Libraries

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000000')

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Sierra18 1 2 3 4 5 3 87.007 2.12
Millennium41 2 1 2 2 5 17 11 1 76.617 1.25
ALEPH 50030 1 2 2 7 11 6 1 76.577 1.64
Symphony (Unicorn)17 1 1 4 4 6 1 75.946 1.70
Voyager27 1 2 2 2 4 4 8 4 75.566 0.77
All Responses149 1 1 5 7 10 15 25 49 30 6 76.277 0.49

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.



Product Satisfaction for Medium to Large Academic Libraries

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '100000')

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Sierra37 1 3 7 8 12 6 87.197 1.48
Virtua18 1 2 1 3 2 7 2 86.728 0.94
Millennium166 1 6 4 11 11 26 57 40 10 76.567 0.54
WorldShare Management Services13 1 1 2 5 4 76.547 0.55
ALEPH 50071 1 5 5 8 13 24 11 4 76.307 1.07
Symphony (Unicorn)76 1 1 3 5 9 12 10 22 7 6 75.826 0.57
Voyager107 3 6 8 9 15 21 33 12 75.616 0.29
Horizon12 2 1 2 1 4 1 1 75.007 0.87
All Responses558 7 4 22 30 40 56 93 167 106 33 76.187 0.30

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

Product Satisfaction for Small Academic Libraries

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '100000')

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
AGent VERSO13 1 2 3 7 87.088 2.22
Millennium36 1 1 2 3 10 6 9 4 66.617 0.50
Symphony (Unicorn)33 1 1 1 5 4 12 6 3 76.587 0.70
Horizon12 1 4 3 2 2 56.257 1.44
Voyager20 1 2 1 8 5 3 65.906 1.34
ALEPH 50012 2 5 4 1 65.836 2.31
All Responses214 2 1 7 9 6 18 33 59 52 27 76.667 0.55

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

Product Satisfaction for Medium sized Academic Libraries

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '100000') (CollectionSize < '1000000')

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Sierra37 1 3 7 8 12 6 87.197 1.48
Virtua18 1 2 1 3 2 7 2 86.728 0.94
Millennium166 1 6 4 11 11 26 57 40 10 76.567 0.54
WorldShare Management Services13 1 1 2 5 4 76.547 0.55
ALEPH 50071 1 5 5 8 13 24 11 4 76.307 1.07
Symphony (Unicorn)76 1 1 3 5 9 12 10 22 7 6 75.826 0.57
Voyager107 3 6 8 9 15 21 33 12 75.616 0.29
All Responses399 6 3 17 23 29 41 67 113 73 27 76.137 0.35

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.

Product Satisfaction for all Academic Libraries

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent14 1 4 2 7 97.869 2.14
Sierra42 1 4 7 9 15 6 87.198 1.39
AGent VERSO14 1 2 4 7 87.078 2.14
Millennium214 1 7 5 13 15 38 68 50 17 76.617 0.48
Virtua25 2 1 2 2 3 3 9 3 86.527 0.80
WorldShare Management Services20 1 1 1 1 2 7 6 1 76.507 0.45
ALEPH 50090 1 3 5 5 8 19 32 13 4 76.217 0.95
Symphony (Unicorn)112 1 1 4 6 10 17 15 36 13 9 76.067 0.38
Voyager135 4 6 10 10 17 29 42 16 1 75.726 0.26
Horizon24 1 2 1 2 5 7 3 3 75.637 1.02
All Responses806 10 5 29 39 47 78 131 242 161 64 76.337 0.25

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.



ILS Satisfaction for School Libraries

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: School)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS135 1 1 1 7 18 107 98.669 0.77
All Responses189 1 1 5 4 20 38 120 98.349 0.65

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.



Product Satisfaction for Very Large Libraries -- All types(Collection over 1 million items)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (CollectionSize > '1000000')

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris26 2 22 2 88.008 1.57
Sierra25 1 3 4 5 9 3 87.047 1.80
Symphony (Unicorn)55 1 1 8 12 17 13 3 76.697 0.81
ALEPH 50037 1 2 3 7 15 8 1 76.657 1.48
Millennium75 1 3 1 2 5 11 30 20 2 76.637 0.92
Horizon17 2 1 3 4 4 3 65.596 1.94
Voyager34 1 3 2 3 4 7 9 5 75.566 0.69
All Responses314 2 3 10 7 14 28 50 95 91 14 76.567 0.34

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.



Product Satisfaction for Medium-sized Libraries -- All types (Collection between 100,000 and 1 million)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (CollectionSize > '100000') (CollectionSize < '1000000')

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris94 1 3 2 14 48 26 87.958 0.83
Library.Solution48 1 1 2 1 4 4 18 17 87.548 1.01
Koha -- ByWater Solutions13 1 2 5 2 3 77.237 1.94
Sierra70 1 1 5 11 20 25 7 87.107 1.08
Spydus16 1 1 1 9 3 1 76.817 1.75
Virtua30 1 1 3 3 7 4 9 2 86.407 1.10
Millennium289 1 3 10 4 15 21 46 97 72 20 76.617 0.41
WorldShare Management Services14 1 2 2 5 4 76.367 0.53
Symphony (Unicorn)232 1 1 6 11 15 33 38 73 41 13 76.277 0.20
ALEPH 50099 1 6 7 12 17 35 16 5 76.347 0.90
Voyager132 3 8 8 12 17 28 40 16 75.676 0.26
Horizon93 3 4 5 7 10 10 9 25 16 4 75.576 0.52
Evergreen -- Equinox Software20 2 2 1 2 3 5 3 2 75.857 1.79
All Responses991 13 10 33 43 65 86 146 280 216 99 76.417 0.22

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.



Product Satisfaction for Small Libraries -- All types (Less than 25,000 items)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (CollectionSize < '25000')

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS154 1 1 7 20 125 98.739 0.73
Apollo69 1 1 7 14 46 98.499 0.84
Library.Solution12 3 4 5 98.178 2.60
Atriuum54 2 3 8 17 24 98.078 1.22
Koha -- ByWater Solutions16 4 9 3 87.948 1.75
Koha -- Independent20 1 5 7 7 87.758 0.22
Polaris19 3 5 6 5 87.688 1.38
AGent VERSO36 1 1 1 2 8 16 7 87.428 1.33
Symphony (Unicorn)44 2 3 2 2 18 11 6 77.007 1.36
Destiny27 1 2 1 5 5 9 4 87.007 1.73
Millennium25 1 1 1 6 3 8 5 86.968 0.60
EOS.Web18 1 2 12 3 76.947 1.89
LibraryWorld14 1 1 4 3 4 1 66.647 2.41
Horizon12 1 3 5 2 1 76.507 2.02
Evergreen -- Equinox Software19 4 1 1 1 1 3 4 4 15.847 1.84
All Responses732 6 8 8 17 15 31 54 142 171 280 97.518 0.33

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.



Product Satisfaction: All responses

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)?

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS186 1 1 1 1 9 30 143 98.639 0.66
Apollo114 1 1 11 23 78 98.549 0.66
Polaris152 2 4 8 29 64 45 87.878 0.57
Koha -- ByWater Solutions63 1 1 5 14 25 17 87.788 0.88
Koha -- Independent39 1 1 1 8 15 13 87.778 0.16
Atriuum131 1 1 4 2 11 24 40 48 97.758 0.79
Concourse14 1 1 1 2 2 7 97.649 2.14
Library.Solution106 2 1 5 1 5 8 17 34 33 87.388 0.29
AGent VERSO74 2 1 3 1 5 15 31 16 87.328 1.05
Destiny48 1 2 4 6 11 16 8 87.178 1.30
V-smart13 1 1 1 6 2 2 77.007 1.94
EOS.Web37 1 3 6 15 8 4 76.957 1.48
Spydus35 2 1 2 20 9 1 76.947 1.18
Libero15 1 3 4 6 1 86.937 2.07
Sierra91 1 1 1 1 13 12 25 29 8 86.877 0.94
Absys.Net24 2 1 5 11 4 1 76.717 1.22
Millennium393 2 3 13 7 19 29 64 118 97 41 76.687 0.45
LibraryWorld18 1 2 4 5 4 2 76.677 2.12
Mandarin M314 2 1 2 4 2 3 76.647 1.60
WorldShare Management Services21 1 1 2 1 2 7 6 1 76.387 0.44
Symphony (Unicorn)379 2 2 10 19 25 48 50 121 72 30 76.367 0.21
ALEPH 500130 1 3 6 7 12 25 48 23 5 76.367 0.79
Virtua43 1 2 2 3 5 8 5 13 4 86.307 0.91
Evergreen -- Equinox Software85 9 4 3 9 8 23 20 9 76.217 0.87
Circulation Plus12 1 1 4 2 3 1 56.177 0.87
Amlib20 1 1 2 1 4 8 3 76.007 0.89
Koha -- LibLime32 3 1 2 3 2 4 7 5 5 75.847 0.71
Horizon140 4 4 5 9 11 21 14 44 20 8 75.817 0.42
Voyager171 4 1 8 11 13 21 37 55 20 1 75.756 0.23
Alto19 2 2 2 7 5 1 65.746 1.61
Axiell Aurora31 4 9 3 7 5 3 34.294 0.54
All Responses2912 28 29 68 108 128 220 342 749 669 571 76.837 0.17

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.




Survey Results: Company Satisfaction

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library overall with the company from which you purchased your current ILS?

Satisfaction Score for Company Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS186 1 1 1 3 25 155 98.769 0.66
Apollo113 2 3 18 90 98.729 0.47
Koha -- ByWater Solutions63 1 1 1 2 12 11 35 98.119 0.88
Atriuum131 1 1 3 11 13 46 56 98.008 0.70
Concourse14 2 1 2 9 97.939 2.41
Polaris151 2 2 1 6 9 17 60 54 87.838 0.65
AGent VERSO76 1 1 1 1 1 4 15 24 28 97.688 1.03
Destiny48 2 2 2 10 20 12 87.678 1.30
Library.Solution105 1 1 1 5 4 9 10 33 41 97.648 0.49
Koha -- Independent36 1 1 1 1 3 4 11 14 97.508 0.17
EOS.Web37 3 1 7 3 15 8 87.198 1.32
V-smart13 1 1 1 5 2 3 77.157 1.94
Sierra92 1 1 2 2 11 8 22 28 17 87.087 0.94
Mandarin M314 1 1 1 1 3 3 4 97.078 1.87
Libero15 1 2 1 3 6 2 87.078 2.07
LibraryWorld17 1 2 2 2 6 4 87.068 2.18
Circulation Plus12 2 1 5 4 76.927 2.02
Evergreen -- Equinox Software85 1 2 12 8 6 19 18 19 76.817 0.98
WorldShare Management Services21 2 1 1 1 1 2 8 5 86.768 0.22
Spydus35 1 1 1 1 3 19 8 1 76.717 1.18
Millennium389 2 7 15 14 24 32 65 103 85 42 76.447 0.46
Absys.Net24 1 3 3 5 6 5 1 76.297 1.22
Virtua42 2 2 3 1 3 9 8 9 5 66.217 0.77
Symphony (Unicorn)377 1 6 14 26 22 43 65 97 71 32 76.217 0.26
Amlib20 3 4 4 5 4 76.156 1.57
ALEPH 500130 1 1 4 8 11 15 22 37 26 5 76.127 0.79
Horizon140 2 3 6 14 12 17 21 32 25 8 75.806 0.51
Voyager169 3 3 6 11 16 22 29 54 25 75.766 0.46
Alto19 3 2 4 5 1 4 65.586 1.15
Koha -- LibLime32 2 1 6 4 2 2 4 8 3 85.536 0.53
Axiell Aurora31 1 2 6 10 5 4 3 33.293 0.54
All Responses2895 23 36 80 122 148 231 325 567 663 700 96.857 0.17

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.


Survey Results: Completeness of Functionality

Completeness of Functionality as rated by Medium to Large Public Libraries

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100000')

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris80 1 2 2 33 25 17 77.618 0.89
Library.Solution35 1 1 1 1 3 3 18 7 87.318 1.35
Sierra24 1 2 2 8 6 5 77.137 1.43
Millennium77 1 3 3 6 14 24 21 5 76.737 0.80
Spydus14 1 1 2 5 5 76.717 2.14
Symphony (Unicorn)113 6 5 15 12 40 30 5 76.647 0.28
Evergreen -- Equinox Software16 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 1 65.756 2.00
Horizon69 1 2 5 6 6 7 11 20 8 3 75.596 0.48
All Responses532 5 3 11 26 21 40 70 168 137 51 76.657 0.13

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.



Completeness of Functionality as Rated by Public Libraries

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo114 2 15 27 70 98.459 0.66
Koha -- ByWater Solutions39 1 1 3 8 18 8 87.648 1.28
Polaris132 1 4 7 48 42 30 77.638 0.70
Atriuum125 1 1 3 7 11 18 53 31 87.558 0.72
Library.Solution82 1 1 3 3 8 16 32 18 87.398 0.77
AGent VERSO58 1 3 2 2 1 2 13 23 11 87.098 1.18
Absys.Net20 1 2 3 6 6 2 77.007 1.34
Libero14 1 1 1 5 6 86.937 2.14
Spydus31 2 1 4 13 10 1 76.907 1.44
Sierra40 1 1 1 3 10 10 8 6 66.707 1.26
Symphony (Unicorn)200 1 1 14 8 19 21 66 51 19 76.707 0.21
Millennium106 1 3 3 7 8 17 29 27 11 76.637 0.87
Evergreen -- Equinox Software77 1 3 15 6 10 20 14 8 76.237 0.91
Destiny35 1 1 3 2 3 4 12 6 3 76.207 1.52
Amlib20 1 1 1 6 8 3 76.107 1.34
LibraryWorld13 3 2 2 2 3 1 35.856 1.94
Horizon100 1 3 5 9 8 14 13 33 9 5 75.686 0.40
Koha -- LibLime14 1 2 3 1 4 1 2 75.647 1.07
Circulation Plus12 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 75.587 0.87
Axiell Aurora25 2 4 5 4 1 7 2 64.084 0.60
All Responses1465 11 11 31 64 70 94 163 388 381 252 76.847 0.24

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.



Completeness of Functionality as rated by Large Academic Libraries

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000000')

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Sierra18 1 3 2 6 4 2 76.727 2.12
Millennium41 1 1 5 2 7 15 7 3 76.417 1.09
ALEPH 50029 1 3 3 6 11 5 76.317 1.49
Symphony (Unicorn)17 1 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 75.826 1.70
Voyager27 1 2 4 1 3 6 8 2 75.336 1.15
All Responses148 3 5 9 15 15 24 48 23 6 76.037 0.41

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.



Completeness of Functionality as Rated by Academic Libraries

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent14 1 3 3 2 5 97.368 1.60
Sierra42 1 1 3 7 10 16 4 87.077 1.39
Virtua24 1 3 1 2 6 8 3 86.837 0.82
Millennium214 1 3 5 16 20 31 71 50 17 76.647 0.62
AGent VERSO14 1 1 2 4 5 1 86.577 2.41
ALEPH 50090 1 5 1 7 8 17 30 17 4 76.287 0.84
Symphony (Unicorn)112 1 3 8 12 10 18 32 22 6 76.167 0.38
Horizon24 1 1 3 1 4 1 6 5 2 75.927 1.43
Voyager135 1 3 6 11 9 23 23 35 22 2 75.756 0.26
WorldShare Management Services20 2 1 1 4 4 5 1 2 75.656 0.45
All Responses805 5 10 26 41 57 85 119 236 169 57 76.307 0.32

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.



Completeness of Functionality across all Responses

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library?

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS186 3 3 13 45 122 98.519 0.66
Apollo114 2 15 27 70 98.459 0.66
Koha -- Independent39 1 1 4 7 9 17 97.778 0.32
Polaris152 1 1 4 8 54 51 33 77.628 0.65
Atriuum131 1 1 3 7 11 20 55 33 87.578 0.70
Koha -- ByWater Solutions63 1 1 2 4 18 27 10 87.488 0.88
Concourse14 1 1 1 3 4 4 87.368 2.14
Library.Solution105 2 1 2 5 3 8 24 36 24 87.268 0.68
AGent VERSO76 2 3 3 2 1 4 18 29 14 87.058 1.03
Sierra91 1 2 1 1 6 17 24 27 12 86.987 0.94
Spydus34 2 1 4 15 11 1 76.947 1.37
Libero15 1 1 1 6 6 76.937 2.07
EOS.Web37 1 2 3 5 11 12 3 86.897 1.32
Absys.Net24 1 3 4 8 6 2 76.887 1.22
Millennium393 1 2 7 9 24 32 58 117 103 40 76.747 0.45
V-smart13 1 1 2 5 1 3 76.697 1.94
Destiny47 1 1 3 2 3 4 15 14 4 76.627 1.31
Virtua42 1 1 4 4 7 9 11 5 86.607 0.77
Symphony (Unicorn)379 1 1 5 24 24 41 46 114 94 29 76.527 0.21
ALEPH 500130 1 5 2 8 12 24 42 30 6 76.467 0.70
Mandarin M314 2 1 3 4 2 2 76.437 1.60
Evergreen -- Equinox Software85 1 3 15 7 11 24 16 8 76.297 0.87
LibraryWorld18 3 2 1 2 3 6 1 86.227 1.89
Amlib20 1 1 1 6 8 3 76.107 1.34
Voyager171 1 3 8 15 10 29 28 43 30 4 75.816 0.23
Horizon140 2 5 6 13 10 19 17 41 17 10 75.766 0.34
Koha -- LibLime32 1 2 4 4 3 2 8 6 2 75.697 0.71
Circulation Plus12 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 75.587 0.87
WorldShare Management Services21 2 2 1 4 4 5 1 2 75.486 0.44
Alto19 1 5 2 4 5 2 35.376 1.61
Axiell Aurora31 2 4 5 4 6 8 2 64.295 0.54
All Responses2910 21 24 67 118 147 221 337 754 730 491 76.797 0.17

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.




Survey Results: Customer Support

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services?

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo114 5 18 91 98.759 0.75
OPALS184 1 2 1 5 23 152 98.709 0.66
Atriuum132 1 3 1 3 9 12 31 72 98.059 0.78
Koha -- ByWater Solutions63 1 1 2 14 12 33 98.059 0.88
Destiny48 1 2 1 7 17 20 98.028 1.30
EOS.Web37 2 7 10 18 97.978 1.48
AGent VERSO76 1 1 3 1 4 11 18 37 97.808 1.03
Library.Solution106 1 1 2 2 3 9 10 34 44 97.748 0.49
Concourse14 1 2 1 1 9 97.719 2.41
V-smart13 1 1 1 1 5 4 87.548 1.94
Polaris152 1 3 2 5 11 44 44 42 77.528 0.65
Mandarin M314 1 1 1 2 2 7 97.439 2.14
Libero15 1 1 1 2 9 1 87.278 2.07
Circulation Plus12 2 1 3 4 2 87.258 2.02
Sierra89 1 2 1 3 5 16 21 20 20 77.067 0.95
Koha -- Independent34 2 1 1 1 2 6 12 9 86.978 0.17
Evergreen -- Equinox Software84 1 1 1 3 12 5 8 16 14 23 96.717 0.98
LibraryWorld18 1 2 1 4 4 6 96.678 2.12
WorldShare Management Services21 2 3 1 1 4 3 7 96.627 0.44
Spydus35 1 2 1 6 16 7 2 76.607 1.18
Symphony (Unicorn)377 1 5 11 14 35 44 36 101 80 50 76.487 0.26
Horizon139 1 2 5 2 15 19 16 25 36 18 86.437 0.51
Millennium385 3 8 16 13 17 34 78 96 76 44 76.397 0.41
Virtua40 2 1 4 2 2 6 7 9 7 86.357 0.63
Absys.Net24 1 2 4 5 6 5 1 76.337 1.22
Amlib20 4 3 5 2 6 86.156 1.34
Alto19 1 3 3 6 2 4 65.896 1.15
ALEPH 500129 1 2 7 13 7 14 23 33 23 6 75.896 0.79
Voyager168 4 5 5 13 17 23 33 45 22 1 75.576 0.46
Koha -- LibLime32 2 2 1 4 2 2 3 5 8 3 85.567 0.53
Axiell Aurora31 1 4 5 6 5 9 1 64.294 0.36
All Responses2883 33 35 80 105 149 211 320 558 614 778 96.907 0.15

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.




Where does this library direct most of its ILS support issues?

ProductILS VendorThrough another library or consortiumTotal Responses
Evergreen -- Equinox Software195989
Koha -- ByWater Solutions431765
Koha -- LibLime191234
Koha -- Independent131940
Millennium29484399
Sierra672195
Symphony254109392
Apollo1122118
OPALS12521187
Polaris10442161
EOS.Web35037
AGent VERSO521779
Atriuum1234135
ALEPH 5008344133
Voyager11154172



Survey Results: Company Loyalty

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company?

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS177 1 1 1 2 4 16 152 98.729 0.68
Apollo112 3 4 6 19 80 98.389 0.57
Concourse14 1 3 2 8 98.149 2.41
Koha -- ByWater Solutions61 2 2 2 2 8 8 37 98.029 0.90
Polaris152 1 1 2 14 3 21 24 86 97.979 0.57
Atriuum132 3 3 2 10 8 17 26 63 97.628 0.78
Libero15 2 1 1 2 5 4 87.278 2.07
AGent VERSO76 5 1 1 2 4 4 8 22 29 97.248 1.03
Sierra91 2 2 2 4 10 7 11 15 38 97.228 0.94
EOS.Web37 2 1 2 2 1 7 8 14 97.148 1.48
Spydus35 2 1 4 1 6 9 12 97.118 1.35
Koha -- Independent33 3 2 1 1 3 6 17 97.009 0.70
WorldShare Management Services21 2 1 1 4 5 8 96.958 0.00
Library.Solution106 10 4 2 4 5 9 13 13 46 96.778 0.19
Destiny48 1 2 3 1 3 4 3 6 8 17 96.678 1.30
Evergreen -- Equinox Software82 5 1 1 10 5 4 16 19 21 96.657 0.99
V-smart13 1 1 2 4 1 4 76.547 1.94
LibraryWorld18 1 1 1 3 2 3 7 96.508 2.12
Millennium388 17 7 14 13 16 39 44 71 80 87 96.497 0.46
Mandarin M314 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 86.437 1.60
ALEPH 500129 7 5 3 3 5 18 16 26 28 18 86.167 0.79
Amlib20 1 3 1 2 3 4 3 3 76.057 1.12
Virtua41 2 2 1 4 4 3 3 5 9 8 85.957 0.78
Voyager170 7 3 6 12 12 33 20 38 14 25 75.816 0.15
Symphony (Unicorn)375 30 11 22 18 25 48 32 76 54 59 75.707 0.05
Circulation Plus12 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 85.587 1.15
Horizon139 16 2 10 7 10 18 19 20 19 18 75.336 0.34
Alto19 2 2 1 3 7 3 1 65.266 1.15
Absys.Net24 3 3 1 5 1 8 1 2 75.256 1.43
Koha -- LibLime32 8 1 1 1 5 4 2 7 3 04.786 0.00
Axiell Aurora30 5 2 3 3 7 5 2 3 43.434 0.00
All Responses2868 164 62 93 87 125 277 226 438 468 928 96.597 0.17

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.




Survey Results: Change in Support Performance

Statistics related to the question: Has the customer support for your ILS gotten better or gotten worse in the last year?

Change in customer support quality Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS168 1 1 16 5 5 36 104 98.189 0.69
Apollo111 15 6 12 16 62 97.949 0.47
Atriuum128 1 1 4 28 10 9 24 51 97.308 0.80
Koha -- ByWater Solutions59 1 2 4 5 5 6 13 23 97.278 0.91
Library.Solution105 1 1 2 26 8 17 17 33 97.047 0.49
Concourse14 1 5 1 2 5 56.938 2.41
Destiny46 1 14 3 10 12 6 56.787 1.33
AGent VERSO75 1 1 2 9 14 3 7 16 22 96.768 0.58
Koha -- Independent34 2 2 6 2 6 7 9 96.747 0.00
WorldShare Management Services20 1 1 2 2 1 5 2 6 96.707 0.89
EOS.Web35 2 13 2 4 7 7 56.637 1.52
Polaris144 2 3 8 50 19 17 16 29 56.376 0.67
Evergreen -- Equinox Software83 2 1 1 10 19 10 10 16 14 56.296 0.55
LibraryWorld17 1 2 1 3 3 1 6 96.246 2.18
Symphony (Unicorn)370 3 3 6 15 26 99 45 55 69 49 56.246 0.31
Libero15 2 5 1 3 3 1 56.206 1.29
V-smart12 1 4 3 2 2 56.176 1.44
Mandarin M313 1 1 5 3 3 56.155 1.39
Virtua40 2 1 7 11 2 4 4 9 56.085 0.63
Amlib20 2 3 3 3 6 1 2 75.956 1.57
Circulation Plus12 1 6 2 3 55.835 1.44
Sierra91 1 2 3 8 4 30 7 15 10 11 55.765 0.94
Horizon137 3 3 4 5 8 55 12 18 16 13 55.665 0.68
Absys.Net24 1 3 9 4 5 2 55.585 1.02
Spydus33 1 2 4 5 14 2 5 65.556 0.70
ALEPH 500126 2 2 4 5 17 40 17 16 18 5 55.525 0.45
Millennium381 10 4 7 19 37 140 55 47 39 23 55.515 0.46
Koha -- LibLime30 1 1 1 3 1 10 5 4 2 2 55.275 0.91
Axiell Aurora30 1 4 3 9 9 4 55.105 0.55
Alto19 2 6 6 1 3 1 45.055 1.15
Voyager162 8 5 1 4 28 65 15 24 10 2 55.015 0.55
All Responses2803 44 32 50 91 219 786 297 357 405 522 56.226 0.17

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.




Survey Results: Open Source Considerations

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library would consider implementing an open source ILS?

Interest Level in Open Source Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent35 2 1 2 30 98.379 1.18
OPALS170 6 2 3 3 1 2 13 140 98.329 0.69
Koha -- ByWater Solutions57 2 1 2 2 3 2 45 98.219 1.19
Evergreen -- Equinox Software72 8 2 1 1 2 1 3 6 48 97.299 1.06
Koha -- LibLime30 3 1 1 3 1 2 3 16 96.739 0.73
LibraryWorld17 3 1 1 4 2 2 1 3 55.005 1.70
Axiell Aurora30 5 2 3 2 1 7 6 2 1 1 54.005 0.00
Voyager167 32 17 19 16 9 32 16 12 5 9 03.593 0.54
Circulation Plus12 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 03.504 1.73
Horizon136 33 12 21 8 9 17 11 12 6 7 03.383 0.43
ALEPH 500128 34 16 13 12 6 15 13 10 7 2 03.123 0.00
Amlib20 6 2 1 4 5 1 1 03.054 0.45
Symphony (Unicorn)373 97 44 47 35 35 41 28 19 13 14 03.002 0.21
Millennium385 105 49 45 33 35 34 32 19 15 18 03.002 0.46
Library.Solution105 37 11 11 11 8 10 6 4 7 02.662 0.88
Alto17 1 3 7 1 3 1 1 22.652 0.49
Concourse12 4 2 3 3 02.584 0.00
V-smart13 4 2 3 1 1 1 1 02.542 0.55
WorldShare Management Services21 4 6 3 2 1 3 1 1 12.522 0.22
Virtua41 11 8 7 1 3 5 2 3 1 02.512 0.78
Atriuum130 49 14 15 10 8 14 8 5 3 4 02.452 0.00
Mandarin M314 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 02.432 0.80
Absys.Net24 9 4 2 3 2 1 1 2 02.331 1.84
AGent VERSO70 22 8 14 4 7 7 5 3 02.312 0.00
Destiny48 18 6 7 3 6 3 2 1 2 02.192 0.00
Polaris149 50 19 23 22 12 10 8 3 1 1 02.112 0.16
Sierra91 37 16 11 7 4 9 2 3 1 1 01.871 0.00
Apollo112 58 10 10 8 5 13 1 1 6 01.840 0.00
Libero15 4 4 3 1 1 2 01.801 0.26
EOS.Web36 19 2 4 2 4 1 3 1 01.780 0.17
Spydus35 17 8 7 1 1 1 00.971 0.17
All Responses2817 734 294 310 199 193 272 171 122 101 421 03.593 0.17

Threshold: 12. Number of required responses for product to be included in the analysis.



Open Source interest scores of libraries currently using an open source ILS compared to 2010 results:

Product201220112010
Koha – Independent8.378.688.41
Koha – ByWater Solutions8.219.008.06
Koha – LibLime6.738.506.34
OPALS8.32 8.327.31
Evergreen7.298.317.53

Survey Results: Migration Trends

Percentages of libraries indicating that they are considering migrating to a new ILS

Product201220112010200920082007
Millennium42.3631.2218.7311.718.286.69
Symphony20.1022.3920.2115.8123.0814.58
Horizon48.9754.0057.3045.6961.0649.45
Aleph34.5925.7118.8711.8512.129.09
Voyager48.8438.3132.2618.9021.8421.62
Polaris1.241.895.776.529.431.56
Apollo00.000.000.000.000.00
Evergreen01.920.000.000.000.00

Note: The percentage of libraries indicating they are considering migration increased for Millennium, Aleph, and Voyager when those companies began promoting thier next-generation products.



Summaries of replacement candidates for libraries indicating they are considering migrating to a new ILS

Current ILSTotal
Responses
ShoppingCandidate systems
AlmaIntotaSierra WMSKuali OLEKoha Evergreen Symphony
Aleph 13346 26 6 3 16 3220
Symphony 3929 10 8 10 22 41281
Horizon 14571 2 1 16 6 1111725
Voyager 17284 41 16 7 22 9532
Millennium 39916932 13 72 22311176
Totals 3,030634121 48 120 9921716551

Note: These counts represent the number of times each product was mentioned among the candidates listed. The matrix lists only selected Current ILS products and candidate systems under consideration. Sum of values for each column are not expected to match total where the system is mentioned irrespective of current ILS.



An interactive version of the statistical reports, is available which includes the ability to view the responses for each of the ILS products, along with the redacted comments.


ILS Turnover Reports

Another set of reports provide information on the ILS products that were selected during 2012 by libraries registered in lib-web-cats. [Note: these numbers are not comprehensive.]

The ILS Turn-over report counts and lists the automation systems recorded as selected or installed in 2010 with a breakdown of the previous systems displaced.

The Reverse ILS Turn-over report. counts and lists the automation systems recorded as replaced in 2012 with a breakdown of the new systems that were selected

General Observations

Some products achieved superlative ratings within their peer groups. OPALS, an open source system used primarily by school libraries and Apollo from Biblionix designed for small public libraries each received exceptionally high ratings in their categories. The survey results indicate that these small libraries have the potential to be truly delighted with products well matched to their needs that are backed by top-notch service. These libraries have a more manageable set of requirements and appreciate systems that fill their needs without undue complexity.

In the small public library category, Apollo stands out at the top of the chart (8.56), followed by other products given excellent ratings: Koha as supported by ByWater Solutions (8.00), Polaris (7.80) Atriuum (7.74), VERSO (7.40) and Library.Solution (7.09) all receiving exceptionally high ratings. The small public library group isn’t necessarily easy to please. Outdated systems, products designed for other library types, and those designed for larger libraries or consortia generally received lower marks. Polaris, for example, was given somewhat higher ratings by larger libraries than smaller ones.

Increased size and complexity have a downward impact on overall satisfaction with automation scenarios. Large academic libraries, those with collections exceeding 1 million items, gave the highest score to Sierra (7.00), which would have fallen only in the midrange of scores in the small public library group. The top performers in the large academic library group received noticeably lower scores than those for large public libraries.

This survey has not attracted a great deal of interest from the K-12 school library arena, with only 191 out of the 3,030 total responses. Of these, 163 were from libraries using OPALS, 10 from Destiny, 7 using some version of Koha, 10 from Library.Solution, 5 using Millennium, 4 using SirsiDynix Symphony, with a few other ILS products represented in smaller numbers. Destiny from Follett Software Company holds dominant market share among school libraries. OPALS represents a relatively portion of the K-12 school market, though it entirely dominates the responses from this peer group in the survey. Libraries using OPALS express superlative perceptions of the software and for support arrangements and are energized to respond. Yet, without sufficient numbers of responses from school libraries using other products, it is difficult to provide context for these numbers. The number of public school in the United States numbers over 100,000, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics, although not every school has a library. In future editions of the survey, we hope to attract a more diverse set of responses from this sector.

As in previous years of the survey, respondents tend to blur their perceptions across many of the questions. Those with generally positive satisfaction, tend to answer the questions about ILS satisfaction, company satisfaction, support satisfaction, and ILS functionality without major distinction. Few responses will indicate high satisfaction in one question and moderate or low satisfaction in others.

Perceptions Open Source ILS Products and Support Companies

Consistent with results from previous years, the scores in the "Interest Level in Open Source" naturally run high for those libraries already involved with an open source ILS, ranging from a high of 8.37 given by those running Koha implemented independently, 8.32 when supported by ByWater Solutions, through 7.29 for Evergreen. Libraries using LibLime Koha reported a bit less enthusiasm for open source ILS with a mean response score of 6.73. For those libraries running a proprietary ILS, the interest in open source ILS seems mostly indirectly proportional to satisfaction with the ILS, company, and support. Libraries running proprietary products that rate high satisfaction with the ILS, company, and support categories selected lower levels of interest in open source alternatives, while those more dissatisfied show at least some higher interest. The scale of interest in open source from those running proprietary systems tops out at 5.00 (LibraryWorld) compared to scores greater than 6.73 from existing open source practitioners.

The survey does not support the notion that libraries running open source are generally more satisfied than those using proprietary systems. In the question category probing the completeness of functionality, open source and proprietary products are both dispersed throughout the result tables. Among small public libraries, Apollo, a proprietary product offered through software as a service beats any of the open source products, though the open source Koha as supported by ByWater Solutions ranks only a tiny notch below. Among the medium to large public libraries (collections greater than 100,000 items), Polaris, Library.Solution, Sierra, Millennium, Spydus, and Symphony received higher rankings than Evergreen as supported by Equinox Software in the completeness of functionality category. No open source products were represented in the large academic library category.

For open source products, we rate each product and support provider combination separately, for example: Koha – ByWater Solutions, Koha – Independent, and Koha – LibLime, Evergreen – Equinox Software, and Evergreen -- Independent. The independent qualifier applies to those libraries that do not rely on an outside firm for the hosting or support of their implementation. In some cases the underlying software may be identical, but some involve distinct variants. This convention also allows the survey to handle the evaluation vendor performance.

Libraries that have implemented Koha independently reflect higher satisfaction than those that rely on commercial support arrangements. One might suppose that this reflects their enthusiasm toward open source and that they are essentially evaluating themselves rather than an external organization. ByWater Solutions continues to reap high praise from their support customers. Libraries using the versions of Koha supplied and supported by LibLime reflected some of the lowest satisfaction scores on this year's survey across all categories. Satisfaction with Evergreen as supported by Equinox Software fell into the middle tier of results in most categories.

It's important to note that despite any softening in the scores rating interest in open source ILS products, many libraries indicating that they are interested in a migration mention open source products as a replacement candidate: Evergreen (65) Koha (71) and Kuali OLE (21). The new library services platforms offered under proprietary licenses, however, generated even stronger interest: Alma (121), Sierra (120), WorldShare Management Services (99), and Intota (48).


Details about The Survey

The survey instrument included five numerical ratings, three yes/no responses, and two short response fields, and a text field for general comments. The numeric rating fields allow responses from 0 through 9. Each scale was labeled to indicate the meaning of the numeric selection.

Four of the numeric questions probe at the level of satisfaction with and loyalty to the company or organization that provides its current automation system:

A yes/no question asks whether the library is considering migrating to a new ILS and a fill-in text field provides the opportunity to provide specific systems under consideration. Another yes/no question asks whether the automation system currently in use was installed on schedule.

view automation survey

Given the recent interest in new search interfaces, a yes/no question asks “Is the library currently considering a search interface for its collection that is separate from the ILS?” and a fill-in form to indicate products under consideration.

The survey includes two questions that aim to gauge interest in open source ILS, a numerical rating that asks “How likely is it that this library would consider implementing and open source ILS?” and a fill-in text field for indicating products under consideration.

The survey concludes with a text box inviting comments.

View the survey. (This version of the survey does not accept or record response data.)

In order to correlate the responses with particular automation systems and companies, the survey links to entries in the lib-web-cats directory of libraries. Each entry in lib-web-cats indicates the automation system currently in use as well as data on the type of library, location, collection size, and other factors that might be of potential interest. In order to fill out the survey, the responder had first to find their library in lib-web-cats and then press a button that launched the response form. Some potential respondents indicated that found this process complex.

The link between the lib-web-cats entry and the survey automatically populated fields for the library name and current automation system and provided access to other data elements about the library as needed. The report on survey response demographics, for example, relies on data from lib-web-cats.

A number of methods were used to solicit responses to the survey. E-mail messages were sent to library-oriented mailing lists such as WEB4LIB, PUBLIB, and NGC4LIB. Invitational messages were also sent to many lists for specific automation systems and companies. Where contact information was available in lib-web-cats, and automated script produced e-mail messages with a direct link to the survey response form for that library.

The survey attempted to limit responses to one per library. This restriction was imposed to attempt to sway the respondents to reflect the broad perceptions of their institution rather than their personal opinions.

The survey instrument was created using the same infrastructure as the Library Technology Guides web site—a custom interface written in perl using MySQL to store the data, with ODBC as the connection layer. Access to the raw responses is controlled through a user name and password available only to the author. Scripts were written to provide public access to the survey in a way that does not expose individual responses.

In order to provide access to the comments without violating the stated agreement not to attribute individual responses to any given institution or individual, an addition field was created for “edited comments.” This field was manually populated with text selected from the “comments” text provided by the respondent. Any information that might identify the individual or library was edited out, with an ellipse indicating the removed text. Comments that only explained a response or described the circumstances of the library were not transferred to the Edited Comments field.

Statistics

To analyze the results, a few scripts were written to summarize, analyze, and present the responses.

In order to avoid making generalizations based on inadequate sample sizes, the processing scripts included a threshold variable that would only present results when the number of responses exceeded the specified value. The threshold was set to a value of 20.

For each of the survey questions that involve a numeric rating, a set of subroutines was created to calculate and display simple statistics.

The "survey-report-by-category.pl" script processes each of the numerical ratings, displaying each of the statistical components listed above for each product that received responses above the threshold value. This report provides a convenient way to compare the performance of each ILS product for the selected question. The report sorts the statistics for each product in descending order of the mean. The report categories available correspond to the survey questions with numerical scale responses.

The “survey-product-report.pl” script provides the results for each of the ILS products mentioned in the responses. This report also provides the statistical components for each of the numeric question. It also provides the percentage of yes responses to the two yes/no questions:

[The text of this section mostly replicates what appeared in the 2007 version of this article. For for both editions of the survey I followed the same methodology for collection and and statistical analysis.]


Caveat

As I noted with previous editions of the survey, one should not read too much into the survey results. Responders to the survey provide their subjective impressions to fairly general questions. Although the survey instructions encourage responders to consider the broader institutional perceptions, it’s usually the case that multiple opinions prevail within any given library. While I believe that this survey does provide useful information about the experiences of libraries with their current integrated library systems and the companies that provide support, it should not be used as a definitive assessment tool.