Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Perceptions 2013: An International Survey of Library Automation

by Marshall Breeding. February 3, 2014

Launch the interactive version of the survey's statistical results

Introduction

This seventh annual Library Automation Perceptions Report provides evaluative ratings submitted by individuals representing over three thousand libraries from 53 countries describing experiences with 136 different automation products, including both proprietary and open source systems. The survey results include 730 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.

Selected Survey Findings: Top Performers

  • Polaris continues to receive top ratings in all categories from large and medium-sized public libraries.
  • Apollo from Biblionix received top ratings in all categories from small and very small public libraries.
  • Alma from Ex Libris received top ratings from large academic libraries in the category of general product satisfaction, management of electronic resources, customer support, and customer loyalty.
  • Sierra from Innovative interfaces received top ratings from large academic libraries for overall product functionality and effectiveness for managing print resources.
  • OCLC WorldShare Management Services received top ratings from small academic libraries in the management of electronic resources.
  • Small academic libraries rated Koha (managed independent of a support firm) highest in the management of print materials.
  • School libraries rated OPALS most positively in response to all survey questions.

Previous editions: 2012, 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.

Caveats

Any interpretation of the statistics must be seen in the context that larger and more complex libraries do not rate thier automation systems as favorably as small libraries.

Libraries may refer to the results of this survey as they formulate technology strategies or evaluate specific products. Although the impressions of libraries using a given product inform one area of investigation, libraries should be careful not to overemphasize the statistics or narrative commens in a procurement process. 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 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 quite different from internal customer surveys. 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

This year, the survey attracted 3,003 responses from libraries in 53 different countries. The countries most strongly represented include the United States (2,314 responses), followed by Canada (150), United Kingdom (92), Australia (106) and New Zealand (38). As with the general demographics of the lib-web-cats database, the respondents of the library primarily come from libraries in English-speaking countries. (Full demographic summary).

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. Responses received from Spanish-speaking countries, included Spain (65), Mexico (3), Argentina (19), and Ecuador (2). A total of 668 of the 3,002 total responses (23 percent) came from libraries outside the United States.

The survey received 3,002 responses: ( 2012=3,030 2011=2,432, 2010=2,173, 2009=2,099, 2008=1,453, 2007=1,779 ). Across all its editions of the survey, the cumulative data collected totals 15,985 responses. The survey was open between November 1, 2013 and February 1. 2014.

Libraries of all sizes responded, including:

CountMoreless
327010000
9751000150000
28250001100000
386100101250000
236250001500000
1615000011000000
229100000110000000
1210000001
Counts where collection size proviced

There were 163 of the 3,002 responses with no collection size data provided.

Public libraries were represented in largest numbers, with 1,210 responses, followed by academic libraries with 729. This year 654 responses came from school libraries, a major increase from the 192 received last year.

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

General Information about the Survey

The survey attracted 20 or more responses from libraries using:

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

Migration Patterns and Trends

The survey provides the opportunity for libraries to indicate interest in migrating to a new system and what candidate systems are under consideration. The candidate systems mentioned may indicate serious evaluation or mere name recognition. Tabulating the names of the products listed shows strong interest in Alma (110), Sierra (104), and WorldShare Management Services (103), with far fewer considering Intota (44) or Kuali OLE (21). Neither Intota nor Kuali OLE has been placed into production by any libraries. It is not surprising that libraries show stronger interest in products that are at least in the early phase of adoption more than those that have not yet been proven.

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

Product 2013 201220112010200920082007
Voyager 50.88 48.8438.3132.2618.9021.8421.62
Millennium 45.28 42.3631.2218.7311.718.286.69
Horizon 44.44 48.9754.0057.3045.6961.0649.45
Aleph 40.40 34.5925.7118.8711.8512.129.09
Virtua 36.84 15.5614.2915.3814.2930.308.33
Symphony 20.37 20.1022.3920.2115.8123.0814.58
Evergreen 1.85 01.920.000.000.000.00
Polaris 0.70 1.241.895.776.529.431.56
Apollo 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.00

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.



The following table summarizes data provided on survey responses relating to whether the library is planning to migrate to a new system in the near future and candidate systems under consideration.

Current ILSTotal
Responses
ShoppingCandidate systems
AlmaIntotaSierra WMSKuali OLEKoha Evergreen SymphonyPolaris
Aleph 994022 1 1 11 43000
Symphony 3246611 8 10 17 253212
Horizon 10849 3 2 8 5 2108815
Voyager 11458 269 6 15 45120
Millennium 2541153823 66 33611965
Totals 3,002486110 44 104 1032149263445

Note: These figures 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. The sum of values given at the bottom of each column represent the total number of times the product was mentioned as a replacement candidate, including for products not among those selected for the table. The highlighted values indicate where the candidate system mentioned is provided by the same company as the incumbant.

New-generation Products

This year’s survey provides the opportunity to gather impressions that libraries express regarding some of the new-generation library services platforms.

Alma

15 libraries using Alma from Ex Libris responded to the survey, all from academic libraries, and most with very large collections. Alma scored well in the difficult-to-please libraries in the large academic category. Alma (6.89) was rated marginally higher than Sierra (6.83), Ex Libris legacy products Aleph (6.54) and Voyager (6.02). Libraries in this category rated Alma’s overall functionality (6.00) and its effectiveness for managing print resources (7.15) below new-generation and legacy products, but gave it higher relative marks for its handling electronic resources (6.69). Although its score for electronic resource management is actually lower than its own for print management, competing products received even lower ratings. These libraries gave Aleph (4.23) and Voyager (4.73) more negative marks in this category. Overall the survey reflects well on Alma in its critical target category of larger academic libraries. The rankings show strong support for the company itself (7.86), its support for Alma (7.08), and the strength of the product to manage electronic resources which are the dominant area of concern for these libraries. The lower rankings given regarding the management of print resources may be less of a concern given the dramatic shifts away from print in academic library collections. The small number of responses means that Alma’s ratings this year should be taken as only tentative indicators.

WorldShare Management Services

WorldShare Management Services from OCLC saw responses from 31 libraries, primarily from academic libraries (25), but also with public (2), school (1), and special (3) representation. The small number of responses and the diversity libraries using the product meant that WMS did not appear in many of the statistical tables organized by categories. When limiting to all academic libraries regardless of size, WorldShare Management Services received top ratings in the category of managing electronic resources and lowest for managing print resources. Academic libraries using WMS indicated strong loyalty to OCLC, though not quit as much as those using Alma. WMS appeared in the tables for smaller academic libraries and received top marks for its handling of electronic resources (6.84), mid-level ratings for general ILS satisfaction (6.96) and customer support (7.16), and was given low marks for overall ILS functionality (5.88), effectiveness for print (7.04) relative to peers in this category. WorldShare was listed as a migration candidate by libraries currently using Aleph (11), Symphony (17), Voyager (15), Millennium (33), and Horizon (5).

Sierra

Among large public libraries, Sierra from Innovative Interfaces, Inc. received second-highest rankings for general ILS satisfaction (6.56), company loyalty (6.75), overall ILS functionality (6.88), and effectiveness for print (7.25), and electronic resources (6.0). This group of libraries gave Innovative low marks for support of Sierra (6.0) relative to competitors. The same pattern prevailed in the medium-sized public library category. Among small public libraries, Sierra received low ratings in almost all categories by these libraries that prefer products with simplified functionality. Large academic libraries also gave Sierra generally favorable ratings, topping the tables in the categories of overall ILS functionality (6.89) and effectiveness for print (7.78), second highest for general ILS satisfaction (6.83), effectiveness for electronic resources (6.24), company loyalty (7.03), and it received mid-level marks for satisfaction with customer support (6.41). Smaller public libraries rated Sierra well for effectiveness with print (7.95) and company loyalty (6.82) and gave mid-level scores for customer support (6.56). In almost all tables, Sierra appeared higher than Innovative’s legacy Millennium ILS except for those in the small public library category where Millennium generally scored more favorably. Sierra was mentioned by a very high percentage of libraries using Millennium as a migration candidate (66). The 169 responses by libraries using Sierra, , mostly offering positive though not superlative ratings, reflect that the product is becoming very well established and generally appreciated. The 248 responses for Millennium reflecting the size of the remaining customer base, 45.3 percent of which indicate interest in migrating, and strong indicators of interest toward migrating to Sierra, all bode well for Sierra’s future prospects. Ratings for Millennium have diminished in recent years (General ILS satisfaction: 2007=7.17, 2008=7.09, 2009=7.13, 2010=7.11, 2011=6.88, 2012=6.68, 2013=6.44).

ProQuest Intota and the open source Kuali OLE also belong to the category of library services platforms, but no not yet have libraries using them in production.

Established systems

Polaris

Polaris, a full-featured integrated library system from Polaris Library Systems 138 total responses, mostly from public libraries (118), with some academics (11), school (1), and special (1). Full range of library sizes represented. Only 1 site reported interest in moving to a new system.

Polaris was mentioned as a migration candidate especially by libraries currently running SirsiDynix Symphony (12) or Horizon (15).

Libraries using Polaris have given Polaris remarkable steady rankings for ILS satisfaction (2007=7.78, 2008=7.73, 2009=7.79, 2010=7.77, 2011=7.77, 2012=7.87, 2013=7.63). Satisfaction with customer support is the same as last year, but down a fraction from earlier years (2007=8.11, 2008=7.41, 2009=7.68, 2010=7.74, 2011=7.55, 2012=7.52, 2013=7.54), possibly explained by the increased challenges of a growing customer base that includes ever larger installations.

Polaris dominated the ratings among large public libraries by fairly wide margins, including those for general ILS satisfaction (7.88, next highest Sierra=6.56), overall functionality (7.88), effectiveness for print (8.13), electronic (7.12), customer support (7.82), and company loyalty (8.59). Medium sized public libraries likewise gave Polaris top marks in all categories. Small and very small public libraries rated Polaris among the middle of the pack.

Apollo

Apollo, a Web-based automation system from Biblionix topped all tables in both the small and very small library categories. Fewer libraries using Apollo responded to the survey compared to last year (2013=54, 2012=114, 2011=53, 2010=81, 2009=35, 2008=7, 2007=4). All responses came from public libraries with relatively small collections. None indicated interest in migrating to a new ILS. The results of this year’s survey continue to validate the superlative satisfaction of small public libraries using Apollo.

Atriuum

Libraries using Atriuum from Book Systems Inc. have responded in increasing numbers to each edition of the survey (2013=221, 2012=132, 2011=32, 2010=23, 2009=55, 2008=7, 2007=5). Responses came from smaller public libraries (174), schools (53), and academics (2). Ratings have steadily improved (general ILS satisfaction: 2013=8.04, 2012=7.75, 2011=7.63, 2010=7.09, 2009=7.14, 2008=6.40). Among small and very small public library categories Atriuum consistently received second-highest ratings. While not quite as superlative as Apollo, Atriuum receives excellent marks from its public library customers. In the school arena Atriuum likewise received second-highest rankings, topped by OPALS in each table.

School Libraries

This year saw a dramatic increase in the number of K-12 school library responses (2013=654, 2012=191, 2011=126, 2010=143, 2009=111, 2008=36, 2007=30). In previous years of the survey, libraries using OPALS dominated the responses form school libraries, in contrast to the reality that Destiny from Follett Corporation holds an overwhelming lead in market share in this realm. This year survey invitations were distributed more aggressively to school libraries, with responses somewhat more proportionate to actual installations (Destiny=303, OPALS=172, Atriuum=51, SirsiDynix Symphony=26). Other products used by K-12 school libraries were also represented, but not in sufficient numbers to appear in the main tables (Library.Solution=7, Koha=13, Alexandria=9, Mandarin Oasis=4, Horizon=3, Athena=2, Surpass=2, LibraryWorld=2). OPALS, a Web-based automation system developed by MediaFlex, under an open source software license, received highest ratings in each table from libraries in the K-12 School Library category. Atriuum, SirsiDynix Symphony, and Destiny were respectively ordered in each table of responses. The difference in scores from best to worst was relatively small. In the overall ILS satisfaction table, the difference between OPALS (8.72) and Destiny (7.80) spans less than one point. While better known for its use in public and academic, SirsiDynix Symphony finds use in many K-12 school libraries, including the statewide INFOhio project in Ohio.

International Perspective

The survey aims for a broad international perspective. Responses were received from the international clients of the systems commonly used in the United States as well as those that may be used primarily within other geographic regions or countries. A total of 688 responses were received from libraries located outside of the United States. Many of the products more familiar outside of the United States did not receive an adequate number of responses to appear in the main statistical tables.

ProductTotal responsesUnited StatesInternational
All Products30022,314688
Symphony32422698
Millennium25417777
Aleph995148
Voyager1149420
Alma18108
Polaris1431349
Axiell Aurora33033
WorldShare Management Services32284
Absys.Net31031

Selected Statistical Tables

Emphasis on Peer Groups

Public, academic, school, and special libraries each have distinct expectations for their automation products. Previous editions of survey report presented results in comprehensive tables that aggregate results given across all types and sizes of libraries. With the increased number of responses, combined with the enrichment of survey responses with demographic data from each responding library from its entry in the lib-web-cats directory, for the last two years the results have been presented primarily within peer groups. Separate tables are included for the key areas of ILS satisfaction and functionality completeness for public, academic, and school libraries and according to collection size categories.

Tables assembled according to peer groups provide a more fair set comparisons as libraries consider the best products and providers to meet their future automation needs.

This approach enable libraries to make more balanced comparisons and interpretations of the results. Presenting results through amalgamated tables gives a false impression that the products that serve very small libraries perform at a highler level than more sophisticated products designed to serve larger and more complex automation scenarios. Stronger and weaker products emerge more clearly when presented within tables organized by library type and collection size. Examples of the category combination tables are presented below. The interactive version of the survey results dynamically assembles statistical result tables according to any combination of report category, library type, collection size, and country.

Public Libraries

Large Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001')

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris17 6 7 4 87.888 1.94
Sierra16 2 2 1 6 4 1 76.567 0.75
Horizon18 1 1 3 2 5 6 86.397 1.89
Symphony (Unicorn)17 1 1 2 2 7 4 76.247 0.24
All Responses97 3 2 5 3 11 6 31 27 9 76.597 0.30

Large Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001')

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris17 5 9 3 87.888 1.70
Sierra16 3 2 5 6 86.887 1.25
Symphony (Unicorn)17 1 1 4 4 6 1 86.717 1.70
Horizon18 1 1 3 1 8 4 76.337 1.65
All Responses97 1 2 2 7 7 11 29 32 6 86.737 0.51

Large Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001')

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris16 1 1 6 8 98.139 2.00
Sierra16 1 1 2 3 7 2 87.258 1.25
Horizon18 1 1 2 3 7 4 87.178 1.89
Symphony (Unicorn)17 2 1 1 4 9 86.298 1.21
All Responses95 3 4 2 2 6 6 13 40 19 87.058 0.51

Large Public Libraries: effectiveness for electronic resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001')

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris17 1 4 6 4 2 77.127 1.46
Sierra15 1 2 4 1 3 4 56.006 1.03
Symphony (Unicorn)17 2 3 2 2 2 4 2 74.715 0.49
Horizon18 1 1 1 4 2 4 3 2 34.175 1.41
All Responses96 3 4 7 10 7 14 15 19 13 4 75.306 0.41

Large Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001')

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris17 1 1 3 7 5 87.828 2.18
Horizon18 1 3 1 1 10 2 87.118 1.65
Symphony (Unicorn)17 1 1 4 4 5 2 86.767 1.70
Sierra16 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 66.007 0.75
All Responses97 2 4 5 6 6 11 16 31 16 86.697 0.30

Large Public Libraries: Company Loyalty

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001')

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris17 1 5 11 98.599 2.18
Sierra16 1 1 1 3 2 4 4 86.758 0.75
Horizon18 2 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 86.177 2.12
Symphony (Unicorn)17 2 1 4 1 5 2 2 75.657 0.00
All Responses97 6 2 2 2 5 7 9 12 20 32 96.738 0.30

Medium-sized Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000')

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris59 2 3 16 21 17 87.818 1.04
Sierra38 1 2 1 3 3 13 12 3 76.767 1.46
Library.Solution19 1 1 2 4 4 1 6 96.797 1.38
Millennium37 1 2 1 5 6 12 6 4 76.517 1.15
Symphony (Unicorn)75 1 4 3 4 7 11 28 13 4 76.287 0.81
Horizon49 1 5 5 6 5 10 14 3 86.227 1.00
All Responses283 1 7 13 18 26 37 79 58 44 76.687 0.42

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000')

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris59 2 4 15 25 13 87.738 0.91
Sierra38 1 3 3 14 14 3 77.137 1.46
Library.Solution19 2 4 2 2 4 5 96.897 1.15
Millennium37 1 2 4 2 7 10 8 3 76.417 1.15
Symphony (Unicorn)74 2 5 1 7 14 24 16 5 76.537 0.81
Horizon49 1 4 2 5 7 5 14 6 5 75.947 1.00
All Responses282 2 8 14 12 29 41 75 64 37 76.637 0.42

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000')

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris58 1 2 1 7 21 26 98.108 1.05
Sierra38 1 1 1 3 8 17 7 87.478 1.46
Millennium36 1 1 3 4 7 14 6 87.228 1.17
Library.Solution19 2 3 2 2 5 5 87.058 1.15
Symphony (Unicorn)75 2 2 2 1 5 13 16 27 7 86.777 0.92
Horizon49 1 2 2 5 4 11 15 9 87.007 1.00
All Responses280 4 6 6 22 43 60 79 60 87.187 0.42

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000')

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris59 1 2 3 8 11 10 18 6 86.687 0.78
Library.Solution19 1 3 4 2 1 6 2 86.326 1.38
Sierra36 1 2 2 9 5 7 9 1 56.116 1.50
Millennium37 1 2 5 5 8 3 6 6 1 55.325 0.82
Symphony (Unicorn)74 2 3 8 8 6 13 16 11 6 1 64.895 0.70
Horizon49 1 4 5 7 7 8 6 6 4 1 54.535 0.57
All Responses280 5 11 14 21 27 54 51 36 43 18 55.516 0.24

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000')

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris59 1 3 2 15 21 17 87.738 1.17
Library.Solution19 1 4 2 2 2 8 97.218 1.15
Horizon49 2 1 3 5 4 3 19 12 87.128 1.29
Symphony (Unicorn)74 2 1 2 2 1 5 10 23 21 7 76.657 0.93
Sierra37 1 1 1 3 2 3 6 9 7 4 76.117 1.48
Millennium37 3 2 6 5 4 8 6 3 75.706 0.33
All Responses281 4 7 5 9 17 27 25 65 70 52 86.697 0.54

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Company Loyalty

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000')

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris59 1 1 2 1 8 13 33 98.089 1.17
Library.Solution17 1 1 2 4 2 1 6 96.597 1.70
Sierra38 3 1 1 3 5 9 8 8 76.557 1.46
Symphony (Unicorn)74 6 1 1 5 12 6 20 9 14 76.197 1.05
Millennium37 2 1 2 1 1 4 5 5 7 9 96.327 0.82
Horizon49 3 1 7 3 5 5 8 8 9 95.947 1.00
All Responses278 16 1 6 10 15 33 24 55 42 76 96.547 0.42

Small Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000')

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo21 1 5 15 98.679 1.96
Atriuum66 1 1 2 4 10 25 23 87.828 0.86
Koha -- ByWater Solutions31 1 3 6 8 13 97.848 1.62
Polaris90 5 7 23 30 25 87.708 0.84
Evergreen -- Equinox Software28 1 1 3 5 7 5 6 76.717 1.70
Library.Solution45 1 2 5 6 12 6 13 97.077 1.34
Millennium49 1 2 1 6 9 15 9 6 76.677 1.00
AGent VERSO25 1 2 3 2 4 10 3 86.808 0.00
Symphony (Unicorn)108 1 5 4 7 9 16 36 23 7 76.407 0.67
Horizon65 1 1 7 8 8 8 11 18 3 86.006 0.87
Sierra54 1 6 3 1 4 4 17 13 5 76.247 1.22
All Responses353 2 2 12 11 12 23 37 75 94 85 87.048 0.16

Small Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000')

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo21 1 2 7 11 98.339 1.96
Atriuum66 1 1 2 4 10 27 21 87.798 0.86
Polaris90 4 9 23 33 21 87.648 0.74
Koha -- ByWater Solutions31 1 2 5 9 9 5 77.167 1.44
Library.Solution45 2 7 7 8 12 9 87.077 1.19
Evergreen -- Equinox Software28 2 1 1 1 6 6 6 5 66.617 1.70
Millennium49 1 2 4 5 8 13 10 6 76.577 1.00
Symphony (Unicorn)107 3 8 1 8 22 32 23 10 76.587 0.68
AGent VERSO25 1 3 1 2 8 7 3 76.727 0.00
Sierra54 1 1 4 5 4 19 15 5 76.707 1.22
Horizon65 1 7 5 7 9 7 15 9 5 75.656 0.87
All Responses353 1 2 13 13 9 28 40 74 98 75 86.977 0.16

Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000')

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo20 1 7 12 98.559 2.01
Koha -- ByWater Solutions31 1 1 1 4 10 14 98.008 1.62
Atriuum66 1 1 3 5 10 22 24 97.778 0.86
Millennium48 1 1 4 5 11 17 9 87.298 1.01
Polaris89 1 1 1 5 4 11 31 35 97.828 0.85
Evergreen -- Equinox Software28 1 2 1 4 7 7 6 77.047 1.70
AGent VERSO25 1 1 1 3 6 8 5 87.048 0.20
Symphony (Unicorn)108 2 1 2 2 1 7 19 27 35 12 86.867 0.77
Library.Solution45 2 1 2 4 4 8 12 12 87.008 1.19
Sierra54 2 1 2 4 5 10 20 10 87.138 1.22
Horizon65 1 3 4 11 6 11 18 11 86.747 0.87
All Responses352 5 4 6 5 13 26 28 64 110 91 87.188 0.16

Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000')

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo21 1 4 3 13 98.339 1.96
Atriuum64 3 2 1 1 4 10 11 15 17 96.898 0.63
Polaris89 1 1 4 6 13 14 17 22 11 86.537 0.64
AGent VERSO24 1 1 2 3 4 7 3 3 76.297 0.20
Koha -- ByWater Solutions31 1 1 1 4 7 7 7 3 66.427 1.44
Symphony (Unicorn)105 2 5 9 9 9 16 22 19 10 4 65.216 0.59
Library.Solution45 3 2 7 6 4 8 9 6 86.007 1.34
Evergreen -- Equinox Software28 3 1 3 3 5 2 10 1 74.935 0.94
Sierra52 1 1 1 4 5 11 7 10 9 3 55.796 1.25
Millennium48 3 3 6 6 8 4 9 7 2 75.255 0.72
Horizon65 3 8 6 10 8 9 7 6 7 1 34.254 0.50
All Responses344 18 12 11 21 31 37 35 78 51 50 75.877 0.00

Small Public Libraries: Company Loyalty

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000')

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo20 3 17 98.859 2.01
Atriuum65 1 2 1 6 4 19 32 97.958 0.99
Polaris89 1 2 2 4 3 14 17 46 97.879 0.95
Koha -- ByWater Solutions31 2 1 2 1 5 20 97.719 1.62
Evergreen -- Equinox Software28 1 2 2 2 7 4 10 96.898 1.51
Library.Solution43 2 1 1 1 4 8 5 5 16 96.817 1.37
AGent VERSO25 2 1 1 1 2 1 6 6 5 76.407 0.00
Symphony (Unicorn)106 7 3 2 2 8 15 8 25 16 20 76.147 0.87
Millennium49 4 1 2 1 2 5 7 8 9 10 96.147 0.71
Sierra54 7 2 1 1 1 4 5 12 10 11 76.007 1.22
Horizon64 5 3 8 5 8 6 10 8 11 95.616 0.88
All Responses345 19 8 14 8 19 27 26 42 58 124 96.678 0.27

Very Small Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1') (CollectionSize < '30000')

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo54 1 3 14 36 98.549 1.09
Atriuum162 1 1 1 4 7 26 52 70 98.018 0.71
Evergreen -- Equinox Software43 1 1 3 5 12 11 10 77.147 1.37
Koha -- ByWater Solutions51 1 1 2 3 11 13 20 97.758 1.26
Polaris111 1 7 8 27 37 31 87.668 0.76
LibraryWorld12 1 2 3 3 3 77.428 2.02
Symphony (Unicorn)130 1 1 5 4 7 9 18 43 31 11 76.557 0.61
Destiny27 1 3 3 9 8 3 77.077 1.54
Absys.Net26 2 1 2 4 8 9 86.627 1.57
AGent VERSO57 5 1 2 6 3 16 16 8 76.477 0.00
All Responses386 11 6 8 6 11 21 28 79 103 113 97.138 0.36

Very Small Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1') (CollectionSize < '30000')

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo54 1 3 14 36 98.549 1.09
Atriuum162 1 1 1 4 7 26 52 70 98.018 0.71
Evergreen -- Equinox Software43 1 1 3 5 12 11 10 77.147 1.37
Koha -- ByWater Solutions51 1 1 2 3 11 13 20 97.758 1.26
Polaris111 1 7 8 27 37 31 87.668 0.76
LibraryWorld12 1 2 3 3 3 77.428 2.02
Symphony (Unicorn)130 1 1 5 4 7 9 18 43 31 11 76.557 0.61
Destiny27 1 3 3 9 8 3 77.077 1.54
Absys.Net26 2 1 2 4 8 9 86.627 1.57
AGent VERSO57 5 1 2 6 3 16 16 8 76.477 0.00
All Responses386 11 6 8 6 11 21 28 79 103 113 97.138 0.36

Very Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1') (CollectionSize < '30000')

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo53 1 3 15 34 98.559 1.10
Atriuum162 1 1 1 5 9 21 51 73 98.028 0.71
LibraryWorld12 1 1 6 4 88.088 2.31
Evergreen -- Equinox Software43 1 2 1 5 11 12 11 87.358 1.37
Koha -- ByWater Solutions51 2 1 1 2 7 16 22 97.888 1.26
Destiny27 2 2 9 8 6 77.378 1.54
Absys.Net26 1 1 2 3 5 13 1 86.778 1.57
Symphony (Unicorn)130 3 1 2 3 2 7 20 36 38 18 86.887 0.70
Polaris109 2 2 1 6 5 16 38 39 97.688 0.77
AGent VERSO57 3 2 1 1 1 1 6 13 18 11 86.778 0.13
All Responses384 10 1 2 8 16 17 28 64 114 124 97.358 0.26

Very Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1') (CollectionSize < '30000')

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo53 1 1 9 8 34 98.309 0.96
Atriuum157 5 3 1 2 13 18 25 38 52 97.248 0.56
Destiny25 3 2 4 1 6 6 3 76.047 1.60
Koha -- ByWater Solutions50 3 1 2 5 10 10 12 7 86.467 1.13
Symphony (Unicorn)127 3 6 9 10 10 18 25 23 14 9 65.426 0.53
Evergreen -- Equinox Software43 4 1 1 4 3 8 3 12 2 5 75.356 0.76
AGent VERSO52 3 2 1 2 4 7 6 11 9 7 75.947 0.14
Polaris109 3 1 2 5 7 16 16 18 28 13 86.347 0.57
Absys.Net24 2 1 4 3 1 5 5 3 64.966 1.22
All Responses367 26 9 10 15 17 41 39 47 75 88 96.277 0.00

Very Small Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1') (CollectionSize < '30000')

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo54 1 1 9 43 98.729 1.09
Atriuum159 1 1 1 2 1 4 2 15 33 99 98.219 0.63
Koha -- ByWater Solutions50 1 1 1 2 1 7 13 24 97.868 1.27
Evergreen -- Equinox Software43 1 1 1 2 2 4 10 11 11 87.078 1.22
Symphony (Unicorn)128 3 1 2 5 4 10 13 34 37 19 86.797 0.71
Polaris110 3 1 9 6 26 31 34 97.558 0.86
Destiny27 1 1 1 1 3 6 6 8 97.048 1.73
AGent VERSO57 4 1 3 2 2 11 16 18 97.028 0.00
Absys.Net25 2 4 1 4 3 5 5 1 75.686 1.80
All Responses377 12 6 5 13 11 21 19 54 75 161 97.288 0.46

Very Small Public Libraries: Company loyalty

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1') (CollectionSize < '30000')

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo53 1 1 1 8 42 98.589 1.10
Atriuum159 2 2 6 11 13 34 91 98.099 0.71
Evergreen -- Equinox Software42 1 2 2 4 1 8 9 15 97.178 1.23
Koha -- ByWater Solutions51 3 1 1 5 1 9 31 97.639 1.26
LibraryWorld12 1 1 4 2 4 77.338 2.31
Destiny26 1 2 4 1 7 4 7 76.777 1.57
Polaris110 1 1 2 3 7 6 18 22 50 97.668 0.86
Symphony (Unicorn)127 8 3 3 3 9 16 10 28 22 25 76.237 0.80
AGent VERSO56 5 2 1 2 3 4 5 12 11 11 76.137 0.00
Absys.Net26 2 5 5 1 8 4 1 75.857 1.77
All Responses379 26 7 8 9 11 37 27 40 71 143 96.808 0.46

All Public Libraries: General ILS satisfaction

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
Apollo54 1 3 14 36 98.549 1.09
Atriuum168 1 1 1 4 7 26 53 75 98.048 0.69
Koha -- ByWater Solutions52 1 1 2 3 12 13 20 97.738 1.25
Polaris114 1 7 8 29 37 32 87.668 0.66
LibraryWorld12 1 2 3 3 3 77.428 2.02
Spydus15 1 1 8 3 2 77.277 2.32
Evergreen -- Equinox Software43 1 1 3 5 12 11 10 77.147 1.37
Library.Solution53 1 1 2 5 6 13 10 15 97.087 1.24
Destiny27 1 3 3 9 8 3 77.077 1.54
Millennium51 1 2 1 6 9 16 9 7 76.737 0.98
Absys.Net27 2 1 2 4 8 9 1 86.707 1.54
Symphony (Unicorn)136 1 1 5 4 7 10 20 44 32 12 76.577 0.43
AGent VERSO57 5 1 2 6 3 16 16 8 76.477 0.00
Horizon67 1 1 7 9 8 8 11 19 3 86.006 0.86
Sierra62 2 1 9 3 1 5 4 18 13 6 75.897 1.14
Amlib16 1 2 1 3 4 3 1 1 65.506 1.50
Axiell Aurora25 3 7 3 3 9 75.325 1.20
All Responses1170 14 11 31 35 49 83 118 276 289 264 86.947 0.20

All Public Libraries: Overall ILS functionality

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
Apollo54 1 1 4 17 31 98.419 1.09
Atriuum168 2 1 1 3 7 26 57 71 98.018 0.69
Polaris114 2 4 11 28 41 28 87.618 0.66
Koha -- ByWater Solutions52 1 1 3 5 15 15 12 77.388 1.11
LibraryWorld12 1 3 1 5 2 87.338 2.02
Spydus15 4 4 6 1 87.277 2.32
Library.Solution53 1 2 7 7 9 16 11 87.118 1.10
Evergreen -- Equinox Software43 2 1 1 2 6 9 13 9 87.058 1.37
Absys.Net27 1 1 3 4 9 8 1 76.747 1.54
Symphony (Unicorn)135 1 3 9 2 8 28 38 28 18 76.677 0.26
Destiny27 1 1 5 2 9 7 2 76.677 1.54
Millennium51 1 2 4 5 8 14 10 7 76.637 0.98
AGent VERSO57 3 1 5 4 3 19 15 7 76.587 0.00
Sierra62 1 1 2 6 6 4 21 15 6 76.427 1.14
Amlib16 2 1 5 2 6 85.887 2.00
Horizon67 1 7 5 7 10 7 15 10 5 75.676 0.86
Axiell Aurora25 1 7 5 5 7 45.405 1.20
All Responses1168 8 8 30 38 49 86 133 264 312 240 86.947 0.20

Academic Libraries

Large Academic Libraries: General ILS satisfaction

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000')

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma13 2 1 6 4 76.927 1.94
Sierra54 3 2 2 1 8 15 16 7 86.837 0.95
ALEPH 50048 1 1 3 2 2 4 20 13 2 76.547 1.15
Millennium105 1 2 2 6 8 9 25 29 21 2 76.106 0.68
Symphony (Unicorn)54 2 5 8 5 3 14 12 5 76.097 1.22
Voyager52 1 2 2 3 7 11 19 6 1 76.027 1.11
All Responses384 7 3 7 21 25 32 63 115 86 25 76.347 0.36

Large Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000')

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Sierra54 2 2 2 2 7 15 19 5 86.897 0.95
ALEPH 50048 1 3 2 2 8 18 11 3 76.547 1.15
Millennium105 2 6 6 10 28 27 20 6 66.357 0.68
Symphony (Unicorn)54 1 2 5 5 3 8 14 14 2 76.117 1.09
Voyager52 3 3 3 5 15 14 8 1 66.026 0.97
Alma13 1 3 4 4 1 66.006 1.66
All Responses384 2 1 13 23 25 31 82 103 83 21 76.297 0.36

Large Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000')

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Sierra54 1 1 7 6 24 15 87.788 1.09
Millennium105 1 4 9 34 35 22 87.568 0.68
ALEPH 50048 1 1 1 14 25 6 87.548 1.15
Symphony (Unicorn)53 1 1 5 5 13 17 11 87.308 1.10
Voyager52 3 2 5 18 17 7 77.257 1.25
Alma13 2 2 3 4 2 87.157 2.22
All Responses383 2 3 9 16 34 101 143 75 87.468 0.36

Large Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000')

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma13 1 2 2 3 3 2 76.697 2.22
Sierra54 1 1 4 3 8 10 12 9 6 76.247 0.68
Millennium105 3 5 5 10 13 17 20 20 7 5 65.175 0.39
Voyager52 1 1 10 6 4 8 8 11 1 2 74.735 1.11
Symphony (Unicorn)54 1 6 4 9 4 5 10 10 4 1 64.695 1.09
ALEPH 50048 2 7 3 4 9 7 7 7 2 44.234 0.87
All Responses383 13 25 28 37 36 55 65 71 34 19 75.075 0.20

Large Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000')

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma13 2 1 5 4 1 77.087 2.22
Symphony (Unicorn)54 1 1 3 9 5 15 9 11 76.817 1.22
ALEPH 50048 1 1 2 3 2 12 9 13 5 86.487 1.15
Sierra54 1 1 1 2 3 7 7 14 12 6 76.417 1.09
Voyager52 3 2 1 4 5 14 14 9 65.876 1.11
Millennium105 1 4 6 7 9 17 19 25 13 4 75.596 0.59
All Responses381 3 12 14 13 23 47 67 88 78 36 76.237 0.31

Large Academic Libraries: Company loyalty

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000')

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma14 1 3 6 4 87.868 2.14
Sierra53 1 1 2 2 2 8 5 10 11 11 86.537 0.82
ALEPH 50048 3 2 4 6 15 9 9 76.507 1.30
Voyager52 1 1 3 2 7 13 8 9 8 66.386 1.25
Millennium105 4 5 3 10 3 21 16 15 18 10 55.656 0.59
Symphony (Unicorn)54 6 3 4 3 4 6 4 11 9 4 75.096 0.00
All Responses383 18 13 12 23 17 49 48 69 75 59 86.067 0.31

Smaller Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '0') (CollectionSize < '200000')

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent19 1 5 4 9 98.058 2.06
Koha -- ByWater Solutions20 1 3 5 7 4 87.508 1.79
Sierra77 3 2 2 2 11 23 22 12 77.037 0.68
WorldShare Management Services25 1 4 2 9 5 4 76.967 1.60
Millennium156 1 3 2 8 10 11 32 49 34 6 76.337 0.56
Voyager88 1 3 5 5 8 16 33 16 1 76.197 0.85
Symphony (Unicorn)91 2 1 2 7 10 8 8 23 23 7 76.187 0.94
ALEPH 50068 1 2 3 3 7 7 27 14 4 76.437 1.09
All Responses297 2 5 8 8 10 25 40 85 72 42 76.737 0.52

Smaller Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '0') (CollectionSize < '200000')

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent19 1 1 1 2 7 7 87.798 2.06
Sierra77 2 2 3 2 9 20 26 13 87.168 0.68
Koha -- ByWater Solutions20 1 3 7 7 2 77.307 1.79
Millennium156 1 2 9 7 15 36 43 31 12 76.467 0.56
Voyager88 1 4 3 5 9 20 27 17 2 76.207 0.75
ALEPH 50068 2 3 2 7 9 25 17 3 76.517 0.97
Symphony (Unicorn)91 1 1 4 8 6 4 14 24 23 6 76.237 0.84
WorldShare Management Services25 2 2 2 3 5 6 3 2 75.886 1.60
All Responses297 2 4 10 10 12 29 39 72 80 39 86.657 0.52

Smaller Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '0') (CollectionSize < '200000')

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent19 1 1 7 10 98.269 2.06
Sierra77 1 1 7 8 35 25 87.958 0.91
Koha -- ByWater Solutions20 1 5 9 5 87.858 1.79
Millennium156 1 3 5 13 41 55 38 87.608 0.56
Voyager88 1 4 3 7 27 36 10 87.318 0.96
Symphony (Unicorn)90 1 1 1 9 11 19 32 16 87.268 0.84
WorldShare Management Services24 1 1 3 2 6 6 5 77.047 1.02
ALEPH 50068 1 1 2 3 4 16 33 8 87.298 1.09
All Responses294 1 2 3 3 6 22 26 43 115 73 87.438 0.52

Smaller Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '0') (CollectionSize < '200000')

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
WorldShare Management Services25 1 1 3 1 1 6 7 5 86.847 1.60
Koha -- Independent18 1 1 1 5 3 4 3 66.337 2.12
Koha -- ByWater Solutions20 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 4 4 76.407 1.79
Sierra76 1 2 1 5 4 9 16 13 17 8 86.257 0.46
Millennium156 4 7 6 12 17 27 29 28 16 10 65.426 0.32
Voyager87 1 5 11 10 7 13 18 14 5 3 64.865 0.86
ALEPH 50068 3 7 5 6 13 11 10 9 3 1 44.385 0.49
Symphony (Unicorn)91 3 9 8 14 6 11 17 15 7 1 64.595 0.84
All Responses290 10 16 16 21 26 39 49 43 47 23 65.486 0.47

Smaller Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '0') (CollectionSize < '200000')

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent16 1 2 3 10 98.389 2.25
Koha -- ByWater Solutions20 1 2 2 4 11 97.859 1.57
WorldShare Management Services25 1 2 4 7 6 5 77.167 1.80
Sierra77 1 1 2 3 4 8 11 18 18 11 76.567 0.23
Millennium156 1 5 8 8 10 23 25 43 26 7 75.916 0.48
Symphony (Unicorn)91 1 1 2 2 6 14 6 25 17 17 76.657 0.94
Voyager87 4 2 1 9 10 20 28 12 1 75.956 0.86
ALEPH 50068 1 3 3 4 7 13 14 16 7 86.287 0.97
All Responses291 1 5 7 6 19 29 31 70 60 63 76.817 0.53

Smaller Academic Libraries: Company loyalty

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '0') (CollectionSize < '200000')

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent16 1 1 1 5 8 97.759 2.25
Sierra76 1 1 2 2 3 10 8 15 14 20 96.827 0.69
WorldShare Management Services25 1 1 1 2 1 2 7 10 97.328 1.80
Koha -- ByWater Solutions19 1 1 1 2 4 3 7 96.748 1.84
Millennium156 5 6 4 12 6 26 19 28 30 20 85.997 0.48
Voyager87 1 1 2 5 2 12 18 21 13 12 76.387 0.96
ALEPH 50068 4 2 1 6 4 9 17 11 14 76.407 1.09
Symphony (Unicorn)91 9 4 6 4 5 12 10 14 18 9 85.406 0.00
All Responses289 15 6 8 9 13 28 28 51 56 75 96.547 0.53

All Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction

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 -- Independent19 1 5 4 9 98.058 2.06
Koha -- ByWater Solutions20 1 3 5 7 4 87.508 1.79
Sierra78 3 2 2 3 11 23 22 12 77.007 0.68
WorldShare Management Services25 1 4 2 9 5 4 76.967 1.60
Alma13 2 1 6 4 76.927 1.94
Virtua13 2 1 1 3 3 3 76.697 2.50
ALEPH 50070 1 2 3 3 8 8 27 14 4 76.407 1.08
Millennium158 2 3 2 8 10 11 33 49 34 6 76.287 0.56
Voyager90 1 3 5 5 8 16 35 16 1 76.217 0.84
Symphony (Unicorn)92 2 1 2 7 10 8 9 23 23 7 76.177 0.94
Horizon21 2 2 1 3 3 4 4 2 75.766 1.96
All Responses714 10 8 15 32 37 60 110 208 163 71 76.507 0.26

All Academic Libraries: Effectiveness in managing print resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent19 1 1 7 10 98.269 2.06
Sierra78 1 1 8 8 35 25 87.928 0.91
Koha -- ByWater Solutions20 1 5 9 5 87.858 1.79
Virtua13 1 1 2 6 3 87.698 2.22
Millennium158 1 3 5 13 41 56 39 87.618 0.56
ALEPH 50070 1 1 2 3 4 17 33 9 87.318 1.08
Voyager90 1 4 3 7 28 37 10 87.318 0.95
Horizon20 2 1 2 4 6 5 87.308 2.01
Symphony (Unicorn)91 1 1 1 9 12 19 32 16 87.248 0.84
Alma13 2 2 3 4 2 87.157 2.22
WorldShare Management Services24 1 1 3 2 6 6 5 77.047 1.02
All Responses710 1 3 5 7 16 38 62 152 269 157 87.458 0.26

All Academic Libraries: Effectiveness in managing electronic resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
WorldShare Management Services25 1 1 3 1 1 6 7 5 86.847 1.60
Alma13 1 2 2 3 3 2 76.697 2.22
Koha -- ByWater Solutions20 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 4 4 76.407 1.79
Koha -- Independent18 1 1 1 5 3 4 3 66.337 2.12
Sierra77 1 2 1 5 4 10 16 13 17 8 86.236 0.46
Virtua13 2 2 4 2 2 1 65.776 2.22
Millennium158 5 7 6 12 17 28 29 28 16 10 65.396 0.32
Voyager89 1 5 11 10 7 14 19 14 5 3 64.885 0.85
Symphony (Unicorn)92 3 9 9 14 6 11 17 15 7 1 64.575 0.83
ALEPH 50070 3 7 5 6 13 11 11 10 3 1 44.445 0.48
Horizon20 3 4 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 13.554 1.79
All Responses705 27 42 46 60 64 100 119 118 84 45 65.236 0.15

All Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with ILS support

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent16 1 2 3 10 98.389 2.25
Koha -- ByWater Solutions20 1 2 2 4 11 97.859 1.57
WorldShare Management Services25 1 2 4 7 6 5 77.167 1.80
Alma13 2 1 5 4 1 77.087 2.22
Symphony (Unicorn)92 1 1 2 2 6 14 7 25 17 17 76.647 0.94
Sierra78 1 1 2 3 4 9 11 18 18 11 76.547 0.23
Horizon21 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 6 96.387 1.96
ALEPH 50070 1 3 3 4 8 13 15 16 7 86.277 0.96
Voyager89 4 2 1 9 10 22 28 12 1 75.966 0.85
Millennium158 1 5 8 8 11 23 26 43 26 7 75.906 0.48
All Responses704 4 17 23 20 44 81 105 163 141 106 76.477 0.23

All Academic Libraries: Company Loyalty

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

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma14 1 3 6 4 87.868 2.14
Koha -- Independent16 1 1 1 5 8 97.759 2.25
WorldShare Management Services25 1 1 1 2 1 2 7 10 97.328 1.80
Sierra77 1 1 2 2 3 11 8 15 14 20 96.797 0.68
Koha -- ByWater Solutions19 1 1 1 2 4 3 7 96.748 1.84
ALEPH 50070 4 2 2 6 4 9 17 11 15 76.377 1.08
Voyager89 1 1 2 5 2 13 19 21 13 12 76.367 0.95
Virtua13 1 2 1 1 3 2 3 76.087 2.50
Millennium158 5 6 4 12 8 26 19 28 30 20 85.966 0.48
Horizon21 1 1 3 1 3 3 1 4 4 85.816 1.96
Symphony (Unicorn)92 9 4 6 4 5 13 10 14 18 9 85.396 0.00
All Responses704 36 20 21 33 34 82 78 124 134 142 96.247 0.23

School Libraries

School Libraries: Overall ILS Satisfaction

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
OPALS172 1 4 6 20 141 98.729 0.69
Atriuum51 1 3 5 13 29 98.259 1.26
Symphony (Unicorn)26 2 1 6 5 12 97.928 0.98
Destiny331 1 1 10 27 71 120 101 87.808 0.38
All Responses641 2 1 3 3 3 15 39 99 181 295 98.018 0.36

School Libraries: General ILS Functionality

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

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS172 2 3 8 29 130 98.649 0.69
Atriuum51 1 3 6 16 25 98.168 1.12
Symphony (Unicorn)26 1 2 7 4 12 97.928 1.18
Destiny331 1 2 1 3 10 20 84 127 83 87.678 0.44
All Responses641 2 1 5 3 6 15 34 115 202 258 97.908 0.36

School Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: School)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS172 4 4 21 143 98.769 0.46
Atriuum51 3 3 16 29 98.399 1.12
Symphony (Unicorn)26 1 5 5 15 98.279 1.57
Destiny330 1 4 13 49 109 154 98.198 0.44
All Responses640 4 1 2 7 26 67 176 357 98.289 0.24

School Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: School)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS151 3 2 4 12 51 79 98.279 0.73
Atriuum49 1 2 5 2 6 14 19 97.598 1.14
Symphony (Unicorn)25 1 6 2 6 10 97.408 1.00
Destiny303 3 6 7 7 38 46 76 72 48 76.827 0.40
All Responses589 9 2 12 8 16 55 59 102 161 165 97.188 0.37

School Libraries: Company Loyalty

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

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS169 1 2 5 13 148 98.769 0.69
Atriuum50 1 1 3 1 3 10 31 98.069 1.27
Destiny325 7 3 1 4 15 17 41 85 152 97.798 0.39
Symphony (Unicorn)26 2 3 2 4 2 13 97.549 0.98
All Responses629 15 5 2 1 9 29 22 60 116 370 97.959 0.36


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 2013 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 2013 with a breakdown of the new systems that were selected


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.