Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Statistical Report for Symphony (Unicorn)

2013 Survey Results 2012 Survey Results 2011 Survey Results 2010 Survey Results 2009 Survey Results 2008 Survey Results 2007 Survey Results
Product: Symphony (Unicorn) Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction319 3 3 8 14 18 24 36 100 75 38 76.627
ILS Functionality318 2 2 7 20 10 20 52 88 75 42 76.677
Print Functionality318 3 1 3 4 9 20 35 76 101 66 87.238
Electronic Functionality311 7 17 22 29 24 47 53 50 37 25 65.366
Company Satisfaction317 4 9 10 16 16 17 43 81 79 42 76.507
Support Satisfaction316 4 3 6 8 18 26 28 78 79 66 86.907
Support Improvement311 4 2 7 5 18 84 23 58 51 59 56.457
Company Loyalty316 21 8 11 9 17 42 26 56 62 64 96.197
Open Source Interest308 91 36 50 22 27 40 13 13 7 9 02.652

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS328 6620.12%
Considering new Interface328 6018.29%
System Installed on time?328 29589.94%
Average Collection size: 847791
TypeCount
Public139
Academic87
School29
Consortia0
Special3
Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00024
[2] 10,001-100,00081
[3] 100,001-250,00064
[4] 250,001-1,000,00068
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00043
[6] over 10,000,0012
Product: Symphony (Unicorn) Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction380 2 2 10 19 25 48 50 122 72 30 76.377
ILS Functionality380 1 1 5 24 24 41 47 114 94 29 76.527
Print Functionality0 06.52
Electronic Functionality0 06.52
Company Satisfaction378 1 6 14 26 22 43 65 98 71 32 76.217
Support Satisfaction378 1 5 11 14 35 44 36 102 80 50 76.487
Support Improvement371 3 3 6 16 26 99 45 55 69 49 56.236
Company Loyalty376 30 11 22 18 25 48 33 76 54 59 75.707
Open Source Interest374 97 44 47 35 35 42 28 19 13 14 03.012

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS393 7920.10%
Considering new Interface393 7519.08%
System Installed on time?393 34888.55%
Average Collection size: 644460
TypeCount
Public206
Academic114
School4
Consortia0
Special9
Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00017
[2] 10,001-100,000125
[3] 100,001-250,00093
[4] 250,001-1,000,00080
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00054
[6] over 10,000,0012
Product: Symphony (Unicorn) Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction326 5 6 9 11 21 37 61 102 57 17 76.187
ILS Functionality320 1 2 7 18 18 30 63 93 69 19 76.397
Print Functionality0 06.39
Electronic Functionality0 06.39
Company Satisfaction326 6 7 19 20 24 35 58 83 53 21 75.886
Support Satisfaction324 4 10 11 14 18 44 54 72 68 29 76.177
Support Improvement323 5 10 10 12 28 81 37 60 48 32 55.876
Company Loyalty323 23 16 16 13 31 44 40 54 55 31 85.476
Open Source Interest318 63 32 48 21 34 45 18 27 12 18 03.483

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS333 7622.82%
Considering new Interface333 8826.43%
System Installed on time?333 30390.99%
Average Collection size: 570393
TypeCount
Public151
Academic116
School4
Consortia0
Special10
Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00010
[2] 10,001-100,00098
[3] 100,001-250,00077
[4] 250,001-1,000,00084
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00040
[6] over 10,000,0011
Product: Symphony (Unicorn) Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction271 3 5 9 12 19 37 41 77 50 18 76.157
ILS Functionality0 06.15
Print Functionality0 06.15
Electronic Functionality0 06.15
Company Satisfaction271 8 8 17 11 26 37 54 57 39 14 75.636
Support Satisfaction269 8 7 15 20 23 32 50 56 39 19 75.676
Support Improvement271 11 7 16 28 21 87 26 26 26 23 55.155
Company Loyalty270 18 15 10 24 29 34 40 40 32 28 65.266
Open Source Interest269 64 26 30 17 19 31 29 19 14 20 03.593

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS282 5720.21%
Considering new Interface282 8128.72%
System Installed on time?282 24285.82%
Average Collection size: 580366
TypeCount
Public142
Academic88
School4
Consortia0
Special10
Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00085
[3] 100,001-250,00051
[4] 250,001-1,000,00054
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00028
[6] over 10,000,0011
Product: Symphony (Unicorn) Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction304 3 5 6 9 16 62 56 96 44 7 76.066
ILS Functionality0 06.06
Print Functionality0 06.06
Electronic Functionality0 06.06
Company Satisfaction303 5 9 27 23 22 56 48 79 29 5 75.346
Support Satisfaction303 3 12 30 23 17 54 45 66 41 12 75.446
Support Improvement292 7 11 19 29 23 89 35 39 30 10 55.095
Company Loyalty301 32 14 12 14 23 67 31 49 43 16 55.065
Open Source Interest300 53 34 26 25 30 40 25 20 23 24 03.904

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS310 4915.81%
Considering new Interface310 8527.42%
System Installed on time?310 26184.19%
Product: Unicorn Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction233 4 7 11 19 16 35 37 64 32 8 75.686
ILS Functionality0 05.68
Print Functionality0 05.68
Electronic Functionality0 05.68
Company Satisfaction234 9 9 16 31 28 23 43 43 26 6 65.056
Support Satisfaction233 12 14 23 18 21 36 39 38 23 9 64.915
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty233 21 13 19 18 17 36 20 43 34 12 74.955
Open Source Interest231 36 23 21 24 17 37 12 23 16 22 54.114

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS234 5423.08%
Considering new Interface234 6929.49%
System Installed on time?234 21491.45%
Product: Unicorn Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction200 4 1 5 10 6 23 29 64 43 15 76.417
ILS Functionality0 06.41
Print Functionality0 06.41
Electronic Functionality0 06.41
Company Satisfaction284 5 8 20 23 27 43 47 61 38 12 75.506
Support Satisfaction282 6 10 13 27 37 33 42 64 34 16 75.486
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty279 25 10 12 9 16 59 31 42 36 39 55.526
Open Source Interest281 54 41 36 32 17 36 21 14 9 21 03.353

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

Comments

looking into the mobil circ have to raise money in order to implement it (Type: Public)

Not interested in open source ILS because we have no IT dept. SirsiDynix is coming out with more and more short instructional videos that are very helpful. (Type: Law)

- (Type: Academic)

We are a federal library and required to follow ever more stringent information assurance requirements. This has strongly influenced what we can do with our ILS and how easily we can upgrade the system. Vendors are slowly coming to grips with what this means for their federal government clients. (Type: Academic)

After exploring open source options we are staying with SirsiDynix and are contracting for SaaS (software as a service). (Type: Public)

As in we don't use Symphony to manage electronic resources, so an N/A would be better than a 5. (Type: Academic)

I have noticed improvement in customer service response times at SirsiDynix in the last couple of years. They have also delivered several long-awaited enhancements, though some of those have only been implemented half-way. Our administration, without regular communication with the vendor, is not as impressed with recent developments and I have tried to reflect that in my answers. We also use an Innovative product called INN-Reach for resource-sharing. We could save money by switching to Innovative Sierra because we would not have to pay for hardware and software to bridge the gap between the systems. It would also streamline our circulation of items through the resource-sharing consortium. I would hope that Innovative's customer support would improve if we became "full-fledged customers," because it has not always been as timely or complete as we would want. (Type: Public)

Looking to move from VuFind to SirsiDynix Enterprise in late 2014 or early 2015 for our discovery layer. (Type: Consortium)

[...] work through our state library for pricing and vendors for our ILS and other databases. The new upgrade -Enterprise is looking very promising. (Type: Public)

If SirsiDynix's Blue Cloud is successfully developed we would pleased to implement it here. However, there is a sense in our library that it is a lot of smoke and mirrors. We hope that is not the case. After being an early adopter of Horizon 8 only to see it cancelled and be moved to Unicorn/Symphony, we are not eager about being on the bleeding edge of technology. (Type: Public)

SirsiDynix need to beef up their offering with regard to electronic journal management. eResource Central is an excellent development but at this early stage it still focuses on e-books. As an academic library it is e-journals that occupy us far more. (Type: Academic)

We are very interested in SirsiDynix's Blue Cloud Suite. (Type: Public)

In New Zealand we have limited choices for ILS vendors unless we wanted to be the only NZ site, which is not advisable. There is a consortium we could join but that has the same vendor as we have at present. Aspects of the consortium, especially around the shared catalogue, make it quite unattractive, but financial considerations may win the day (Type: Public)

We are in the process of upgrading to SD's Enterprise and incorporating Ebsco's EDS with it. SD has been extremely helpful and responsive. (Type: Special)

A recent survey of our libraries points to the need for a better discovery platform. We are looking at options including our current ILS vendor. (Type: Consortium)

This year we tried to move to a discovery layer as our main interface but found that it wasn't sufficiently full-featured to serve as a replacement for our main catalogue interface. We are very keen to see the full integration of eresource management within the staff interface as well as the much heralded (but not yet delivered) '1 click download' future promised by vendors. Also very, very keen to get away from having to deploy a desktop client for staff. (Type: Public)

Symphony's poor support for ejournals is a major source of frustration in our Library. As is price. Symphony has the highest maintenance cost and the most restrictive policies of any enterprise class software across our organisation. We are not planning to investigate migrating only because we are in the middle of a major building project. (Type: Academic)

I am still learning how to better use our current LMS but the previous LMS (Civica Spydus) had some great features although it was more expensive. (Type: Public)

Note: items in library collection doesn't include eJournals (38,000+ titles) or eBooks 140,000+ titles. We have gone from a couple of thousand ebooks in 2010 to over 140,000 ebooks in 2013 and it is now the dominant book format. EJournals have been dominant for many years (our print serials and journals represent a fraction of a percent of the titles we subscribe to). ILS systems that still have workflows and technology predominantly arranged around supporting print are just not good enough anymore. (Type: Academic)

We are part of a state wide consortium. Overall I have been extremely disappointed with reporting capability and with customer focused services e.g. we used to have a system whereby customers identified their interests and were emailed when such an item was catalogued. Our current system needs to improve in these areas. (Type: Public)

We have Sirsi's Symphony (Type: Public)

We are looking forward to implementing SirsiDynix's Bluecloud and eResource discovery interface. (Type: Academic)

We need an ILS 100% Web-based for several reasons including having a discovery tool (Type: )

I still think SD is probably the best ILS vendor in the marketplace for our needs but that doesn't mean I am happy with all they do. I can't see the expense and massive investment of human resources in moving to another vendor product that would probably have equal, albeit perhaps different, flaws. (Type: Academic)

After 10 years, we had a consultant come in from our ILS vendor to look at the problems we were having. It was the best money I've spent in some time. Summon increased our database usage, in some cases, by more than 100%. We are very pleased with the product (Type: Academic)

We'd love to adopt an open source ILS, but acquisition and journals modules are far from ready to be used in an academic setting. (Type: Academic)

#4 not sure what you meant by "electronic resources"? Just ebooks for which we can load MARC records? If so, the ILS does well enough. But if you meant all eresources including journal databases, then no it doesn't handle those, but I also don't expect it to. (Type: Academic)

We are not automated due to financial constraints. (Type: Public)

Symphony has apparently stopped developing for Academic Libraries, and yet continues to increase its maintenance costs in an environment where more and more add-on systems and services are required to pick up the functionality that the traditional ILS cannot. (Type: Academic)

we have signed the contract and will migrate to WMS - going live in[...] (Type: )

[...] consortium which uses Symphony collaboratively, moved to SAAS at SirsiDynix summer 2013 i.e. SirsiDynix now provide servers and maintenance on their site (Type: Academic)

Our library has a union catalog with holdings of 27 other libraries. Our library contains roughly half of the overall holdings (Type: Government Agency)

Please note that the above total represents the e-titles we receive access to as part of a consortium. (Type: Public)

610,000 eResources in the catalog 471,000 physical resources in the catalog (Type: Academic)

We are in search of a new ILS that is a better fit for our library. SirsiDynix is simply too large and robust of a system for our library. Insignia and Koha seem to be a much better fit for us, since they are designed for a small library such as ours. (Type: Public)

Part of the [...]. Moved from NCS to SirsiDynix in April 2013. (Type: Public)

ILS are not that reliable due to the poor internet connection. Therefore; unable to utilize this program as much as we would have anticipated. (Type: Public)

We remain disappointed that our ILS does not support charging by the notice, rather than by the item, for overdues. (Type: Public)

We implemented this ILS before my time at this institution, but I understand the decision was largely a financial one. There was a significant cost savings compared to other systems. The software lacks some functionality that I would have assumed comes standard with an ILS. But I suppose these issues are becoming less important and easier to live with as steer users away from the OPAC and toward our discovery layer. (Type: Academic)

SirsiDynix's has Portfolio and eResource Central products for managing electronic resources. Our group has opted not to purchase either of these products at this time (which is why the answer to that question is blank). (Type: Consortium)

ILS Support is less effective and I seek advice from other libraries in the user groups. I feel the Support is less qualified to answer and answer quickly plus the time delay from the US base is difficult and would like to see support in Australia. We are also moving towards a government consortium and hope it will happen in the coming year. We will then have Enterprise discovery module. (Type: Government Agency)

Uncertain budgets in the federal government make expenditures for innovation less likely than in past years. (Type: Government Agency)

We will be going live with OCLC's WMS by February, at which point we will no longer have access to SirsiDynix Symphony Workflows. This migration is due to budget considerations. (Type: Academic)

- (Type: Academic)

In 2012, we became part of a union database (22 libraries in our consortium). The plan is to share bibliographic records, but the public interface does not fully support this. (Type: Public)

The standalone version of Enterprise is far more functional than the consortium union catalog version. So we have been disappointed in the lack of independence within the consortium to individualize assets. Plus Portfolio has a number of major glitches that have not been corrected as promised. Also waiting in the wings watching the roll out of eResource Central (SirsiDynix) to see if we finally have an efficient way of accessing eBooks etc. (Type: Public)

Budgetary constraints prevent consideration of new products but if the money ever starts flowing in the direction of education again I am sure that there will be some who desire a migration to Follett Destiny. Follett reps are very vocal about the features our schools could have "if only they had Destiny in place". Most of the features are fluff, but fluff is what attracts people and gets them to pay the big bucks. (Type: School)

The library is not using the ILS to its full functionality. The library is in the process of upgrading all the relevant hardware to host a new solution. In the long term the library will explore moving to a cloud solution. (Type: Law)

we are a small school community library in the SA public libraries consortia. not really student/school friendly. (Type: Public)

As we are a consortia and the state library is the administrator of the system I am responding in general for the consortia, not just the state library. (Type: State)

We are actively watching the developing BlueCLOUD product suite for additional functionality. (Type: Public)

Consortia with two other government agencies. Item count reflects the total collection. (Type: Government Agency)

We have indicated that we are less than totally satisfied with the Symphony product. To an extent this is due to the limitations of the software within our consortial environment, and also to the rather cumbersome Workflows interface; we look forward to an improved user interface for Symphony. Have not commented on customer support as we now contact consortium support staff, and no longer contact SirsiDynix support directly. (Type: Public)

We are part of a consortium of libraries that share a catalog. This shared catalog is what causes most of our issues with our ILS but it is too expensive and time consuming to leave the group since all our data is shared. (Type: Public)

Will be migrating to Sierra in 2014. (Type: Public)

We don't have an actual collection, we are the[...] providers for our consortium school libraries but provide support with the ILS utilized. (Type: Consortium)

I am a ITC provider and the am the library automation specialist for 30 districts. (Type: Consortium)

Our service is provided by [...] and our ITC. It is excellent. (Type: School)

[..] services approx. 110 school libraries in northwest [...] . (Type: Consortium)

- (Type: Consortium)

Excellent technical support from [..] Consortium (Type: Consortium)

I continue to be thankful that I chose to go with [...] automation system all those years ago. I have never once regretted it. The support is amazing and they continue to grow and evolve so that staff and students have access to 21st century tools for teaching and learning. (Type: School)

It is difficult to answer these questions because decisions about the ILS are made at the district level, and have very little to do with the preferences of those who run the individual school libraries. Tech support also takes place at that level, so it is difficult for me to evaluate items like whether the support has gotten better or worse in the last year. (Type: School)

Currently reviewing six responses to our RFP; narrowed down to Polaris or Innovative for demos. (Type: Public)

[...] does a wonderful job in supporting the k12 schools in [...]. I am very proud and happy to be a part of the service to our users. (Type: Consortium)

August 2013 We migrated and joined the [...] (Type: Public)

Symphony with e-Library is a serviceable ILS. It is particularly frustrating to use with electronic resources, because the cataloging layer fights tooth and nail against records that have no physical, circulating copies to work with. We implemented EDI ordering in 2013 and it seemed very fiddly, with multiple cases of having to type the same information over and over again in different fields. (Type: Public)

We are very pleased with Symphony functionality, performance and customer support. (Type: Academic)

Even though [...] is not currently considering migrating to any new/different LIS systems currently, we are watchful of open source products such as Koha and Evergreen. (Type: )

Still waiting for the multi-tenant playing field to solidify. Too much is still vaporware. (Type: )

We have been impressed at the number of web services that are being offered by our vendor. We are able to create custom interfaces that interact with web services for many different applications. More web services are on the way, making it a very open system. We have been able to do a lot of integration that we couldn't do in the past. (Type: Academic)

- (Type: Public)

ILS