Statistical Report for ALEPH 500

2012 Survey Results 2011 Survey Results 2010 Survey Results 2009 Survey Results 2008 Survey Results 2007 Survey Results
Product: ALEPH 500 Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction130 1 3 6 7 12 25 48 23 5 76.367
Company Satisfaction130 1 1 4 8 11 15 22 37 26 5 76.127
Support Satisfaction129 1 2 7 13 7 14 23 33 23 6 75.896
Support Improvement126 2 2 4 5 17 40 17 16 18 5 55.525
Company Loyalty129 7 5 3 3 5 18 16 26 28 18 86.167
Open Source Interest128 34 16 13 12 6 15 13 10 7 2 03.123

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS133 4634.59%
Considering new Interface133 3526.32%
System Installed on time?133 10578.95%
Average Collection size: 10677748
Product: ALEPH 500 Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction139 1 2 3 7 12 11 22 47 27 7 76.277
Company Satisfaction139 2 2 7 8 12 12 24 38 21 13 76.067
Support Satisfaction138 3 1 7 7 10 16 20 40 22 12 76.097
Support Improvement139 2 2 4 7 16 51 14 13 15 15 55.615
Company Loyalty137 9 10 3 5 6 24 10 21 30 19 85.797
Open Source Interest139 32 14 20 7 13 20 16 6 3 8 03.323

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS140 3625.71%
Considering new Interface140 4532.14%
System Installed on time?140 10877.14%
Average Collection size: 1515109
Product: ALEPH 500 Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction105 1 1 7 3 12 18 39 20 4 76.417
Company Satisfaction104 1 4 6 10 18 14 31 16 4 75.976
Support Satisfaction104 2 7 5 7 14 21 20 25 3 85.966
Support Improvement103 6 1 3 14 43 12 6 9 9 55.335
Company Loyalty103 6 4 5 6 17 9 22 15 19 75.987
Open Source Interest103 16 18 10 10 10 17 8 6 5 3 13.403

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS106 2018.87%
Considering new Interface106 6359.43%
System Installed on time?106 8983.96%
Average Collection size: 1854711
Product: ALEPH 500 Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction133 2 2 1 7 7 16 26 37 31 4 76.267
Company Satisfaction131 4 1 5 4 11 20 20 35 25 6 76.007
Support Satisfaction132 4 2 5 4 12 24 27 23 20 11 65.866
Support Improvement123 3 1 2 3 14 43 19 16 11 11 55.675
Company Loyalty132 11 5 5 6 7 11 13 26 31 17 85.897
Open Source Interest131 30 10 11 12 12 15 16 15 3 7 03.664

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS135 1611.85%
Considering new Interface135 6145.19%
System Installed on time?135 10577.78%
Product: ALEPH 500 Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction66 2 1 1 6 5 8 12 20 9 2 75.806
Company Satisfaction66 2 2 7 5 7 7 16 10 7 3 65.206
Support Satisfaction66 2 1 6 11 4 13 8 13 5 3 55.055
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty66 6 3 3 7 7 9 8 8 8 7 55.065
Open Source Interest66 9 6 8 3 6 14 5 9 1 5 54.115

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS66 812.12%
Considering new Interface66 3756.06%
System Installed on time?66 5278.79%
Product: ALEPH 500 Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction78 4 2 4 2 4 9 15 28 9 1 75.696
Company Satisfaction87 5 2 7 5 10 14 12 22 8 2 75.166
Support Satisfaction86 5 4 8 4 16 10 13 16 6 4 44.885
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty85 11 6 3 6 8 20 6 11 6 8 54.655
Open Source Interest87 17 8 11 4 13 13 4 9 3 5 03.624

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS88 89.09%
Considering new Interface88 3438.64%
System Installed on time?88 11.14%

Comments

ILS products under consideration: The library keeps an eye on the ILS market in general, but prefers not to give names of any specific products at this time. (Type: Academic)

We have EDS as discovery tool and Aleph both integrated into Vufind (Type: Special)

[...] Library plans to start implementing one of the "cloud" systems in 2013 (Type: Academic)

- (Type: Academic)

We're part of a consortium. We've never dealt directly with Ex Libris (the vendor for Aleph), so I answered the questions about customer support, etc. with the [...] staff in mind instead. This also means that we don't decide if we're trying new products and ILSs; we do what the consortium does. (Type: Law)

Above approximate number of titles held - most titles acquired before 1979 are not in the on-line catalogue so this is an approximation. (Type: Government Agency)

Our library is among over 300 libraries in our consortium so we are not able to answer some of the questions correctly. We would like to aquire a discovery interface for our users but it is not up to us. It would be best to send this questionnaire to the consortium here in [...] and ask them to answer your questions. (Type: Public)

I expected to see a question such as "How likely is it that this library would consider implementing a hosted/web-scale/cloud-based ILS". (Type: Academic)

Interoperability with eBook collections may have an impact on choice. As does cloud technology and electronic resource management integration. (Type: Academic)

Our library does not make decisions on our own. We are part of the [...] group, so my answers may not reflect what the [...] office/staff would think about how the process is. We will only be a small part of any decisions made by the group. (Type: Academic)

We now use the Primo discovery layer as our default public catalog, and will be activating Primo Central (article search) next fall. (Type: Academic)

[...] is a member of a national consortia. [...] There are no plans to change the situation. (Type: National)

I have responded with reference to our current Aleph system. Although we have made the decision to migrate to Alma this is not expected to happen before late 2013. (Type: Academic)

Due to local issues we are currently using an older version of the vendor's product which contributes to lesser satisfaction. (Type: Academic)

We belong to the [...] consortium in [...] , and are a fairly small player within the network. Overall, the software works well enough for us, although we occasionally get odd problems and the reports module could be easier to use. We will have input into any new system, but not the final say. (Type: Academic)

We are a founding partner in OLE. (Type: Academic)

[...] we are monitoring the ILS developments but don't see enough reason to move off our current environment as it would be a major initiative with major costs associated with it. The current software has solid functionality for what it does though the customer support varies widely depending on personnel. The real challenges are managing e-resource purchases (ebooks as well as title level). Usefulness of Knowledge bases and are limited by vendor constraints. There needs to be a total separation between content and management tools (image if ILSs from the 1980s and 1990s were owned by content publishers and had similar constraints - ready access to their own content but limited access to competitors.) (Type: Academic)

We did a massive weeding of print material since the last survey (Type: Academic)

We are very happy with our vendor customer support for our ILS, but not for other products. Support for our federated search product has actually gotten worse. We are also in the process of trying to find a digital preservation system. (Type: Special)

We did not implement an OPAC when we installed Aleph in 2011 but chose to use Primo as the single front end. In answering the survey, we are thinking of the ILS as comprising Aleph and Primo. Though there are gains in dropping an OPAC, e.g. support effort and simpler naviagtion for users, we have found that it is taking time for Primo to achieve full functionality and stability. We may consider re-introducing an OPAC in order to satisfy demands of particular stakeholder interest groups, especially the areas of maps, music and early printed books. The main issues of concern have been lack of index browsing and Primo's implementation of quasi-FRBR clustering. (Type: Academic)

We are very satisfied with ILS support from Ex Libris, but completely dissatisfied with support for Primo. (Type: Academic)

- (Type: Academic)

Considero que los servicios de descubrimiento y las interfaces de la nueva generación de catñalogos deberían incluirse dentro del SIGB y no tener que adquirirlos por separado. Por el momento los precios que se ofrecen al mercado, al menos para Argentina, son muy elevados. No conozco ninguna biblioteca univesitaria en Argentina que haya implementado servicios de descubrimiento o catálogos de nueva generación. (Type: Academic)

Las respuestas no contestadas lo son porque eso no depende de este centro (Type: Academic)

- (Type: Public)

Esta herramienta es muy util para evaluar y comparar ILS (Type: Academic)

[...] is a partner in the Kuali OLE project and we are committed to implementing the system when it is released. (Type: Academic)

Just local but not consortia (Type: Academic)

The discovery system was _not_ implemented in a timely manner. It took ~2 years to implement Primo according to the terms of the contract. It's still not what we were sold, but we've lowered our expectations. Our system decision is made by our library consortium,[...] which is currently looking at next generation management systems. While our Aleph system has lots of functionality, it is a rather difficult beast to manage, particularly in a small library. Adding Primo and SFX to the package only increases the expense, care and feeding required. Our library is advocating for a simpler, more streamlined system. At this point we would take fewer features in exchange for more reliability and better support. We are not considering open source because we don't have the resources to support/develop it. (Type: Theology)

[....] New ILS, discovery interface decisions will be made statewide. (Type: Academic)

Went live with the Primo Central system in October 2012. (Type: Government Agency)

We will likely not continue with AquaBrowser. (Type: Academic)

- (Type: Consortium)

We are in the final stages of moving our Ex Lbirs applications, including ALEPH to hosted with Ex Lbiris. (Type: Academic)

ILS