Library Technology Guides

Statistical Report for Horizon

2011 Survey Results	2010 Survey Results	2009 Survey Results	2008 Survey Results	2007 Survey Results
Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics Category Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median ILS Satisfaction 149 2 4 6 5 11 28 22 44 17 10 7 5.91 6 Company Satisfaction 149 2 2 9 9 15 12 27 36 29 8 7 5.94 6 Support Satisfaction 147 3 3 6 12 13 23 29 40 18 8 6.55 7 Support Improvement 147 1 1 6 3 12 49 17 23 15 20 5 5.97 6 Company Loyalty 149 10 5 8 5 12 17 21 29 23 19 7 5.72 6 Open Source Interest 146 31 15 16 11 10 16 14 11 12 10 0 3.75 4 Category Total Yes percent Considering new ILS 150 81 54.00% Considering new Interface 150 44 29.33% System Installed on time? 150 138 92.00%	Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics Category Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median ILS Satisfaction 179 1 1 9 9 20 24 31 44 27 13 7 5.99 6 Company Satisfaction 179 4 3 19 15 18 29 22 43 19 7 7 5.31 6 Support Satisfaction 179 4 4 14 9 23 17 23 45 24 16 7 5.73 6 Support Improvement 179 10 8 12 10 25 55 17 23 12 7 5 4.80 5 Company Loyalty 179 21 9 9 11 20 21 24 31 19 14 7 4.94 5 Open Source Interest 176 31 15 15 8 17 19 16 14 14 27 0 4.44 5 Category Total Yes percent Considering new ILS 185 106 57.30% Considering new Interface 185 65 35.14% System Installed on time? 185 162 87.57% Average Collection size: 399582	Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics Category Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median ILS Satisfaction 190 3 5 6 7 13 24 25 69 31 7 7 6.07 7 Company Satisfaction 188 4 14 19 21 21 23 25 37 16 8 7 4.91 5 Support Satisfaction 188 3 5 10 16 14 31 25 39 28 17 7 5.77 6 Support Improvement 177 6 10 11 9 21 59 25 16 14 6 5 4.89 5 Company Loyalty 186 26 9 12 9 21 30 16 26 22 15 5 4.75 5 Open Source Interest 185 27 13 20 20 17 20 18 23 7 20 0 4.25 4 Category Total Yes percent Considering new ILS 197 90 45.69% Considering new Interface 197 48 24.37% System Installed on time? 197 159 80.71%	Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics Category Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median ILS Satisfaction 206 3 3 9 18 24 20 41 54 31 3 7 5.68 6 Company Satisfaction 206 17 10 22 25 31 33 25 27 11 5 5 4.32 4 Support Satisfaction 206 8 5 16 21 20 20 37 40 31 8 7 5.35 6 Support Improvement 0 not applicable Company Loyalty 206 25 17 17 17 24 33 21 21 14 17 5 4.37 5 Open Source Interest 206 21 22 18 14 18 22 15 26 15 35 9 4.80 5 Category Total Yes percent Considering new ILS 208 127 61.06% Considering new Interface 208 59 28.37% System Installed on time? 208 189 90.87%	Product: Horizon Response Distribution Statistics Category Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median ILS Satisfaction 178 1 3 5 4 10 22 48 56 24 5 7 6.13 6 Company Satisfaction 271 17 14 22 33 46 44 40 33 14 8 4 4.49 5 Support Satisfaction 270 2 10 14 14 25 32 47 58 50 18 7 5.89 6 Support Improvement 0 not applicable Company Loyalty 269 28 17 21 21 34 65 29 29 16 9 5 4.35 5 Open Source Interest 269 35 25 32 27 26 36 24 25 17 22 5 4.12 4 Category Total Yes percent Considering new ILS 274 136 49.64% Considering new Interface 274 66 24.09% System Installed on time? 274 1 0.36%

Comments

Owning a legacy ILS is becoming a problem for us, as budget cuts mean reduced staffing. Having to duplicate processes (such as rekeying information from the ILS into the university's finance system) isn't ideal. (Type: Academic)

The project costs with SirsiDynix have gone up significantly over the past few years. Migrating platforms, even for a simple operating/software move is extremely expensive. (Type: Public)

We've just signed a multiyear maintenance contract with SirsiDynix on our Horizon ILS so we're not moving anytime soon. (Type: Academic)

We've had our funding requests for a new ILS turned down two years in a row, and I don't see us getting approval any time soon. We're chugging along with Horizon, which isn't bad, but is missing many of the features we've seen in other ILS products that would make life easier for staff and patrons. I have seen an improvement in SD support over the last year. Most problems we've had have been resolved within a day or two, so I don't have any complaints in that area. (Type: Public)

We have implemented a new discovery interface, Bibliocommons - which is from a third-party, separate from SD. (Type: Public)

We are one of the 8 founding partners of the Kuali OLE Project and expect to be migrating to OLE in 2013-14. (Type: Academic)

We plan to evaluate ILS options again in 2013. So far, we haven't seen a lot of options that have the customizability we want, the robust reporting, and a proven track record with libraries similar to us. (Type: Public)

The library has only migrated to Symphony and EBS discovery layer in the last 2 weeks (as the latest library in our consortium to date), so things are still settling down. Immediately noticeable that there is some additional functionality compared with Horizon, but feels to me like the underlying structure is dated and clunky. Incredibly clunky, unintuitive way of managing items using circulation maps, which I guess I'll get used to. The discovery layer is still settling down, but I feel it has the potential to be AMAZING. (Type: Public)

While I am grateful that SirsiDynix has resumed (limited) development on Horizon, I am still disappointed in the overall offerings provided by the company. Certain products, like Docutek E-reserves, seem to be forgotten in favor of things like ILS/Facebook integration. I believe this illustrates two points: first, the company is developing an uncomfortable history of buying out other software products and then letting them die a slow death and, secondly, the company focus is shifting toward providing more products for public libraries than academic. This isn't necessarily a bad thing because every company needs to find it's niche, but it means I must look to other vendors (such as EBSCO or Springshare) for products that will provide the functionality our academic library needs. (Type: Academic)

We are upgrading to 7.51 in the new year (Type: Public)

Moved to Horizon SaaS this year and it has worked well for the library. SirsiDynix has made more of a concerted effort to work with their customers than in the past. (Type: Public)

We will probably issue an RFP before adopting a new discovery interface in FY2013 and then migrating to a new ILS in FY2014. (Type: Public)

Automation staff answered this survey together - we were not clear whether you wanted answers as individuals or as we think the whole organization would respond. While we are not 100% thrilled with S/D, the reality of budgets will most likely dictate that we will continue to use them. (Type: Public)

Now that SirsiDynix is occasionally upgrading Horizon with enhancements and bug fixes we will sit tight for a few more years. But we don't want to be tied to a "dead" product for too many years even though for the most part we are happy with the functionality. I think we have just gotten used to living with the fact that there is functionality that we would like but aren't going to get! Sigh! (Type: Public)

We are also considering integrating with a larger nearby library [...] that is on Symphony. (Type: Public)

The [...] is currently reviewing RFP responses for a new ILS. We are scheduled to make a decision about a new ILS in January 2012. Therefore, we cannot list the ILS products under consideration. (Type: Public)

The annual maintenance fee associated with Horizon will increase this year. Depending on the amount of the increase, the library will consider changing vendors due to the amount of maintenance fee. (Type: Public)

The [...] WILL be switching to SirsiDynix Symphony in June of 2012, so [...] will be switching as well by default. We're hoping here that Symphony is a more seamless & flexible experience than Horizon has been. (Type: Public)

Regarding migration: We are not looking forward to an ILS migration. There is no outstanding replacement product for Horizon that would justify the trouble and expense. We are not terribly impressed with Symphony. Regarding Horizon itself: SirsiDynix has been adding very good enhancements to this ILS. It is not always addressing old issues. Support response time for Horizon itself is excellent, but has slipped considerably for HIP. Overall, the quality of support on the Horizon side of SirsiDynix is very good. (Type: Public)

Being a medical library, our ILS is not the most important aspect of our online library. As long as it works, we are happy. No plans for a new one unless the vendor were to phase out our current model. Would seek to stay with same vendor as they host our data and would like to avoid the hassle of switching vendors. (Type: Medical)

We have integrated our Library Resources with Campus Guides. (Type: Academic)

Our Consortia is looking at a new ILS system to be implemented in the next year. It would cover the entire [...]. We have had two very through vendor demo and while SD may have the public catalog down, Polaris blows them away with cataloging and acquitions for the purpose that our library uses them for. (Type: Public)

Plan to stay with Horizon and add Enterprise/Portfolio (SaaS) as overlay product and for digital asset management. If full functionality is added to Enterprise for Horizon libraries we may stay with Horizon, if not may be forced to move to Symphony in 3-5 years. If we move to Symphone wil possible go to SaaS due to inhouse IT restrictions. (Type: Public)

We are part of a consortium led by another, much larger library, so we have limited choice on what ILS we have. Our budget is also a serious restriction on what we can have. We'd love Millenium, but we can't afford it! Open source doesn't seem to be an option - this library isn't sure why, but if we were working independently, we would consider it. (Type: Public)

If we were to change ILS we would likely go with an open source product because of the prohibitive costs involved in migrating from SirsiDynix Horizon to Symphony. What will make us remain with Horizon is also the learning curve involved in changing systems. A large portion of my staff is non-technical and are very intimidated by change. (Type: Academic)

We plan to migrate to a new ILS in 2013. One of the features I am looking for is better handling of authenticated access to electronic resources like ebooks from links (e.g. 856 tag) within bib records. In general, we want to see vendor recognition that the patron database is a valuable resource with numerous applications (esp. authentication)beyond the native ILS functions. (Type: Public)

No confidence in the answer regarding the ILS being implemented on schedule per contract. ILS was implemented before I was hired; I have not heard of any problem. (Type: Public)

We are at the end stage in our RFP process to choose a new library system - still awaiting confirmation from the University that the funds are available for a new system. (Type: Academic)

Since we are a federal agency, we are not as free to change systems as other libraries. (Type: Academic)

The Michigan Avenue and Superior Township locations are all part of the Ypsilanti District Library. They are not separate libraries. (Type: Public)

We have a vote in the consortium's decision along with a large number of other libraries. (Type: Public)

Will join [...] LMS consortia in 2013 (using SirsiDynix Symphony) (Type: Public)

Horizon is outdated. (Type: Public)

---

Library Technology Guides is a service provided by Marshall Breeding, independent consultant, author, and speaker.