Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Symphony

2022 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	303	3	9	11	3	15	15	26	97	87	37	7	6.73	7
ILS Functionality	304	2	4	6	6	15	17	41	95	77	41	7	6.83	7
Print Functionality	302	2	3	3	5	5	15	20	76	109	64	8	7.35	8
Electronic Functionality	300	17	11	12	15	19	38	45	63	42	38	7	5.78	6
Company Satisfaction	299	4	3	5	9	13	18	26	76	85	60	8	6.99	7
Support Satisfaction	303	6	2	3	5	7	13	19	68	87	93	9	7.39	8
Support Improvement	0											0	0.00
Company Loyalty	298	24	10	4	6	7	23	18	62	74	70	8	6.52	7
Open Source Interest	283	71	23	23	28	12	43	21	24	19	13	0	3.67	3

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	319	66	20.69%
Considering new Interface	319	15	4.70%
System Installed on time?	319	0	0.00%

Average Collection size:		721638

Type	Count
Public	190
Academic	56
School	1
Consortia	0
Special	9

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	7
[2] 10,001-100,000	105
[3] 100,001-250,000	73
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	65
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	40
[6] over 10,000,001	3

2021 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	332	5	1	6	3	12	19	34	109	91	52	7	7.01	7
ILS Functionality	333	2		6	5	12	27	31	103	102	45	7	7.02	7
Print Functionality	329	1	2	1	3	8	16	24	74	123	77	8	7.49	8
Electronic Functionality	329	20	4	9	17	14	45	51	71	62	36	7	6.01	7
Company Satisfaction	327	4	2	6	7	11	21	19	85	112	60	8	7.12	8
Support Satisfaction	326	3	2	3	5	7	18	17	56	112	103	8	7.54	8
Support Improvement	0											0	0.00
Company Loyalty	330	11	2	8	9	11	29	23	58	103	76	8	6.93	8
Open Source Interest	290	80	27	25	24	22	42	14	23	21	7	0	3.36	3

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	342	53	15.50%
Considering new Interface	342	15	4.39%
System Installed on time?	342	0	0.00%

Average Collection size:		2283406

Type	Count
Public	191
Academic	47
School	3
Consortia	0
Special	6

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	9
[2] 10,001-100,000	109
[3] 100,001-250,000	72
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	78
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	43
[6] over 10,000,001	5

2020 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	321	2	2	7	5	10	22	35	98	96	44	7	6.98	7
ILS Functionality	322		1	2	13	7	18	48	82	112	39	8	7.05	7
Print Functionality	318	1		3	5	7	13	28	69	112	80	8	7.49	8
Electronic Functionality	308	8	9	12	21	17	44	51	72	44	30	7	5.90	6
Company Satisfaction	317		2	7	6	12	16	30	83	100	61	8	7.17	8
Support Satisfaction	314		1	5	6	5	14	22	51	107	103	8	7.61	8
Support Improvement	0											0	0.00
Company Loyalty	316	8	4	7	10	8	24	22	70	77	86	9	7.00	8
Open Source Interest	285	85	22	39	22	14	31	16	16	18	16	0	3.27	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	331	57	17.22%
Considering new Interface	331	16	4.83%
System Installed on time?	331	0	0.00%

Average Collection size:		860340

Type	Count
Public	193
Academic	79
School	9
Consortia	0
Special	6

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	8
[2] 10,001-100,000	108
[3] 100,001-250,000	70
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	73
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	42
[6] over 10,000,001	5

2019 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	439	5	11	8	9	16	33	67	115	122	53	8	6.70	7
ILS Functionality	436	4	10	3	11	21	27	69	118	126	47	8	6.74	7
Print Functionality	433	5	6	3	9	17	23	43	92	163	72	8	7.10	8
Electronic Functionality	426	18	17	22	16	40	48	59	95	74	37	7	5.76	6
Company Satisfaction	434	7	10	5	14	21	27	54	97	131	68	8	6.78	7
Support Satisfaction	423	5	3	7	9	16	30	36	71	130	116	8	7.22	8
Support Improvement	422	6	5	3	8	43	108	56	58	64	71	5	6.26	6
Company Loyalty	429	23	13	10	16	22	32	42	72	97	102	9	6.48	7
Open Source Interest	429	132	46	48	28	56	40	23	18	20	18	0	2.88	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	443	75	16.93%
Considering new Interface	443	51	11.51%
System Installed on time?	443	404	91.20%

Average Collection size:		674873

Type	Count
Public	258
Academic	112
School	12
Consortia	0
Special	6

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	19
[2] 10,001-100,000	148
[3] 100,001-250,000	84
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	100
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	60
[6] over 10,000,001	4

2018 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	473	5	4	5	15	18	34	65	157	118	52	7	6.77	7
ILS Functionality	471	3	5	7	16	16	46	76	125	122	55	7	6.72	7
Print Functionality	471	8	4	8	6	10	28	51	104	162	90	8	7.13	8
Electronic Functionality	460	22	16	25	23	38	50	79	108	58	41	7	5.65	6
Company Satisfaction	468	4	6	11	15	18	33	56	137	120	68	7	6.79	7
Support Satisfaction	462	2	7	13	8	19	34	39	103	122	115	8	7.08	8
Support Improvement	448	9	1	11	14	37	137	49	52	66	72	5	6.10	6
Company Loyalty	459	18	9	20	17	27	41	47	95	88	97	9	6.40	7
Open Source Interest	460	158	56	58	23	43	43	31	24	5	19	0	2.59	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	481	89	18.50%
Considering new Interface	481	45	9.36%
System Installed on time?	481	435	90.44%

Average Collection size:		552666

Type	Count
Public	283
Academic	122
School	13
Consortia	0
Special	8

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	14
[2] 10,001-100,000	173
[3] 100,001-250,000	104
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	108
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	53
[6] over 10,000,001	2

2017 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	531	5	5	13	14	23	39	89	154	122	67	7	6.69	7
ILS Functionality	531	1	7	15	13	24	45	92	150	130	54	7	6.64	7
Print Functionality	523	4	3	12	8	15	30	54	124	177	96	8	7.14	8
Electronic Functionality	525	14	21	34	30	41	76	87	109	78	35	7	5.61	6
Company Satisfaction	523	4	8	10	13	24	54	73	116	133	88	8	6.77	7
Support Satisfaction	518	3	7	6	16	17	38	53	100	160	118	8	7.11	8
Support Improvement	512	5	1	9	8	45	137	61	83	89	74	5	6.31	6
Company Loyalty	516	31	5	23	13	25	51	56	107	103	102	7	6.34	7
Open Source Interest	517	160	69	65	33	68	51	27	21	7	16	0	2.58	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	536	107	19.96%
Considering new Interface	536	51	9.51%
System Installed on time?	536	486	90.67%

Average Collection size:		633322

Type	Count
Public	301
Academic	141
School	16
Consortia	0
Special	9

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	23
[2] 10,001-100,000	179
[3] 100,001-250,000	116
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	122
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	66
[6] over 10,000,001	3

2016 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	431	3	4	10	12	17	31	58	126	117	53	7	6.79	7
ILS Functionality	431	2	2	9	13	21	31	54	132	111	56	7	6.82	7
Print Functionality	426	6	1	4	8	11	17	31	104	153	91	8	7.32	8
Electronic Functionality	422	16	12	24	22	38	45	78	80	73	34	7	5.74	6
Company Satisfaction	427	6	4	11	10	21	32	49	110	111	73	8	6.81	7
Support Satisfaction	418	4	4	5	10	17	29	44	91	111	103	8	7.11	8
Support Improvement	410	5	4	5	8	44	101	53	50	67	73	5	6.29	6
Company Loyalty	425	17	11	7	11	16	46	41	84	90	102	9	6.64	7
Open Source Interest	418	140	57	54	32	46	38	20	11	6	14	0	2.41	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	436	81	18.58%
Considering new Interface	436	49	11.24%
System Installed on time?	436	402	92.20%

Average Collection size:		2753248

Type	Count
Public	235
Academic	132
School	14
Consortia	0
Special	1

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	16
[2] 10,001-100,000	151
[3] 100,001-250,000	91
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	96
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	59
[6] over 10,000,001	5

2015 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	437	5	6	12	8	20	37	58	131	113	47	7	6.66	7
ILS Functionality	436		8	15	12	18	41	54	132	116	40	7	6.62	7
Print Functionality	437	4	5	4	5	17	22	36	123	144	77	8	7.16	8
Electronic Functionality	432	12	20	23	27	35	62	61	89	69	34	7	5.66	6
Company Satisfaction	432	5	9	13	15	18	30	51	109	119	63	8	6.69	7
Support Satisfaction	427	5	4	14	12	15	33	36	101	123	84	8	6.92	7
Support Improvement	420	8	7	3	5	46	108	42	71	69	61	5	6.20	6
Company Loyalty	433	23	14	10	9	23	44	49	84	97	80	8	6.35	7
Open Source Interest	426	153	61	59	27	40	37	15	15	5	14	0	2.27	1

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	460	82	17.83%
Considering new Interface	460	47	10.22%
System Installed on time?	460	402	87.39%

Average Collection size:		653631

Type	Count
Public	256
Academic	116
School	22
Consortia	0
Special	3

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	21
[2] 10,001-100,000	168
[3] 100,001-250,000	91
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	98
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	51
[6] over 10,000,001	1

2014 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	354	1	4	9	16	14	29	55	124	76	26	7	6.53	7
ILS Functionality	355	1	2	11	13	16	29	66	104	85	28	7	6.56	7
Print Functionality	351	3	2	4	4	11	13	43	81	125	65	8	7.24	8
Electronic Functionality	347	10	19	28	34	17	45	63	72	41	18	7	5.31	6
Company Satisfaction	352		9	12	17	19	26	57	98	80	34	7	6.43	7
Support Satisfaction	348	2	4	7	11	13	29	50	86	89	57	8	6.82	7
Support Improvement	339	2	3	2	9	38	96	29	49	53	58	5	6.28	6
Company Loyalty	343	13	12	13	17	22	38	43	56	68	61	8	6.15	7
Open Source Interest	346	108	61	49	26	31	25	18	6	8	14	0	2.39	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	361	76	21.05%
Considering new Interface	361	52	14.40%
System Installed on time?	361	322	89.20%

Average Collection size:		707313

Type	Count
Public	182
Academic	111
School	7
Consortia	0
Special	6

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	14
[2] 10,001-100,000	118
[3] 100,001-250,000	81
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	75
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	49
[6] over 10,000,001	2

2013 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	315	3	3	8	14	18	23	36	99	74	37	7	6.61	7
ILS Functionality	314	2	2	7	20	10	20	52	88	72	41	7	6.65	7
Print Functionality	314	3	1	3	4	9	20	35	76	99	64	8	7.21	8
Electronic Functionality	307	7	17	21	29	24	46	52	50	36	25	6	5.36	6
Company Satisfaction	313	4	9	10	16	14	17	43	81	77	42	7	6.51	7
Support Satisfaction	312	4	3	6	8	16	26	28	77	79	65	8	6.91	7
Support Improvement	307	4	2	7	5	17	83	23	57	50	59	5	6.46	7
Company Loyalty	312	21	8	10	9	17	41	26	56	61	63	9	6.19	7
Open Source Interest	304	90	34	49	22	27	40	13	13	7	9	0	2.67	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	324	66	20.37%
Considering new Interface	324	58	17.90%
System Installed on time?	324	292	90.12%

Average Collection size:		835498

Type	Count
Public	139
Academic	87
School	29
Consortia	0
Special	3

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	24
[2] 10,001-100,000	80
[3] 100,001-250,000	64
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	67
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	41
[6] over 10,000,001	2

2012 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	380	2	2	10	19	25	48	50	122	72	30	7	6.37	7
ILS Functionality	380	1	1	5	24	24	41	47	114	94	29	7	6.52	7
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	378	1	6	14	26	22	43	65	98	71	32	7	6.21	7
Support Satisfaction	378	1	5	11	14	35	44	36	102	80	50	7	6.48	7
Support Improvement	371	3	3	6	16	26	99	45	55	69	49	5	6.23	6
Company Loyalty	376	30	11	22	18	25	48	33	76	54	59	7	5.70	7
Open Source Interest	374	97	44	47	35	35	42	28	19	13	14	0	3.01	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	393	79	20.10%
Considering new Interface	393	76	19.34%
System Installed on time?	393	348	88.55%

Average Collection size:		644460

Type	Count
Public	206
Academic	114
School	4
Consortia	0
Special	9

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	17
[2] 10,001-100,000	125
[3] 100,001-250,000	93
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	80
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	54
[6] over 10,000,001	2

2011 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	326	5	6	9	11	21	37	61	102	57	17	7	6.18	7
ILS Functionality	320	1	2	7	18	18	30	63	93	69	19	7	6.39	7
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	326	6	7	19	20	24	35	58	83	53	21	7	5.88	6
Support Satisfaction	324	4	10	11	14	18	44	54	72	68	29	7	6.17	7
Support Improvement	323	5	10	10	12	28	81	37	60	48	32	5	5.87	6
Company Loyalty	323	23	16	16	13	31	44	40	54	55	31	8	5.47	6
Open Source Interest	318	63	32	48	21	34	45	18	27	12	18	0	3.48	3

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	333	76	22.82%
Considering new Interface	333	88	26.43%
System Installed on time?	333	303	90.99%

Average Collection size:		570393

Type	Count
Public	151
Academic	116
School	4
Consortia	0
Special	10

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	10
[2] 10,001-100,000	98
[3] 100,001-250,000	77
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	84
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	40
[6] over 10,000,001	1

2010 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	271	3	5	9	12	19	37	41	77	50	18	7	6.15	7
ILS Functionality	0											0	0.00
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	271	8	8	17	11	26	37	54	57	39	14	7	5.63	6
Support Satisfaction	269	8	7	15	20	23	32	50	56	39	19	7	5.67	6
Support Improvement	271	11	7	16	28	21	87	26	26	26	23	5	5.15	5
Company Loyalty	270	18	15	10	24	29	34	40	40	32	28	6	5.26	6
Open Source Interest	269	64	26	30	17	19	31	29	19	14	20	0	3.59	3

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	282	57	20.21%
Considering new Interface	282	81	28.72%
System Installed on time?	282	242	85.82%

Average Collection size:		580366

Type	Count
Public	142
Academic	88
School	4
Consortia	0
Special	10

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	5
[2] 10,001-100,000	85
[3] 100,001-250,000	51
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	54
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	28
[6] over 10,000,001	1

2009 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	304	3	5	6	9	16	62	56	96	44	7	7	6.06	6
ILS Functionality	0											0	0.00
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	303	5	9	27	23	22	56	48	79	29	5	7	5.34	6
Support Satisfaction	303	3	12	30	23	17	54	45	66	41	12	7	5.44	6
Support Improvement	292	7	11	19	29	23	89	35	39	30	10	5	5.09	5
Company Loyalty	301	32	14	12	14	23	67	31	49	43	16	5	5.06	5
Open Source Interest	300	53	34	26	25	30	40	25	20	23	24	0	3.90	4

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	310	49	15.81%
Considering new Interface	310	85	27.42%
System Installed on time?	310	261	84.19%

2008 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	233	4	7	11	19	16	35	37	64	32	8	7	5.68	6
ILS Functionality	0											0	0.00
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	234	9	9	16	31	28	23	43	43	26	6	6	5.05	6
Support Satisfaction	233	12	14	23	18	21	36	39	38	23	9	6	4.91	5
Support Improvement	0	not applicable
Company Loyalty	233	21	13	19	18	17	36	20	43	34	12	7	4.95	5
Open Source Interest	231	36	23	21	24	17	37	12	23	16	22	5	4.11	4

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	234	54	23.08%
Considering new Interface	234	69	29.49%
System Installed on time?	234	214	91.45%

2007 Survey Results
Product: Symphony		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	200	4	1	5	10	6	23	29	64	43	15	7	6.41	7
ILS Functionality	0											0	0.00
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	284	5	8	20	23	27	43	47	61	38	12	7	5.50	6
Support Satisfaction	282	6	10	13	27	37	33	42	64	34	16	7	5.48	6
Support Improvement	0	not applicable
Company Loyalty	279	25	10	12	9	16	59	31	42	36	39	5	5.52	6
Open Source Interest	281	54	41	36	32	17	36	21	14	9	21	0	3.35	3

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	288	42	14.58%
Considering new Interface	288	60	20.83%
System Installed on time?	288	1	0.35%

2022 : gen: 6.73 company 6.99 loyalty 6.52 support 7.39

2021 : gen: 7.01 company 7.12 loyalty 6.93 support 7.54

2020 : gen: 6.98 company 7.17 loyalty 7.00 support 7.61

2019 : gen: 6.70 company 6.78 loyalty 6.48 support 7.22

2018 : gen: 6.77 company 6.79 loyalty 6.40 support 7.08

2017 : gen: 6.69 company 6.77 loyalty 6.34 support 7.11

2016 : gen: 6.79 company 6.81 loyalty 6.64 support 7.11

2015 : gen: 6.66 company 6.69 loyalty 6.35 support 6.92

2014 : gen: 6.53 company 6.43 loyalty 6.15 support 6.82

2013 : gen: 6.61 company 6.51 loyalty 6.19 support 6.91

2012 : gen: 6.37 company 6.21 loyalty 5.70 support 6.48

2011 : gen: 6.18 company 5.88 loyalty 5.47 support 6.17

2010 : gen: 6.15 company 5.63 loyalty 5.26 support 5.67

2009 : gen: 6.06 company 5.34 loyalty 5.06 support 5.44

2008 : gen: 5.68 company 5.05 loyalty 4.95 support 4.91

2007 : gen: 6.41 company 5.50 loyalty 5.52 support 5.48

Comments

Symphony is a reliable, strong, very good product. Enterprise is not. The relevancy searching is horrible. There are other very good features but the core searching is poor. They are working on it but it is very poor indeed. One word titles, with subfields are impossible to find. Publication dates should be a part of relevancy. The staff is doing their best to improve it but they seem to be missing what libraries' patrons want in a search. So, this was difficult to fill out this year. Overall I'd give enterprise an 8 or 9 and I'd give Enterprise a 2 in searching and an 8 in special features. I hope that helps. (Type: Consortium)

SirsiDynix Symphony needs a new public interface/OPAC. Without having to buy a new product. (Type: Academic)

We are generally happy with the direction that Sirsidynix is taking with BlueCloud, however the aging symphony (formerly Unicorn) legacy backend is an ongoing pain point. That said, I don't think that any of the major players, which I guess means evergreen and the Innovative - Sierra and Polaris platforms, are significantly better. (Type: Consortium)

SirsiDynix Symphony is a good, robust LMS but Sirsi have been slow to provide developments in Electronic Resources Management for the system. (Type: Academic)

We are migrating to Evergreen in March 2015 via the [...] . Equinox will provide hosting, training, and support. (Type: Public)

The rollout of Enterprise has been a disaster from which we may have a very difficult recovery. That recovery may involve moving away from SirsiDynix. (Type: Consortium)

As part of [...] , this will be a consortium decision. Please note customer satisfaction marks are for Sirsi and not the local TLN staff. We receive excellent customer service from our cooperative. (Type: Public)

We have noticed a significant improvement in customer support but becoming more concerned about testing, release and implementation of new products associated with the "BLUEcloud" suite. (Type: Consortium)

We upgraded our service tier to "Platinum" and migrated the database from ISAM to SQL. A year ago we launched eRC. We have invested time and effort in almost everything SirsiDynix has to offer. (Type: Public)

SirsiDynix has gotten too expensive. Blue Cloud is coming out too slowly. (Type: Academic)

Symphony is a perfectly fine print management system. The majority of our budget goes to e-resources. There's a disconnect between what we need from an ILS, and what's being provided. (Type: Academic)

SirsiDynix has an unfortunate habit of releasing products to market before they have been thoroughly tested for errors and compatibility issues. This has been happening for several years and there are now a number of problems with its electronic resource connector tools. They have billed customers to correct bugs in their own Symphony software. When questions are asked of the vendor related to compatibility, functionality, adherence to privacy legislation, etc, often vague or inaccurate responses are provided. We would prefer to deal with a company that is honest about its products and pricing, even if there are shortcomings. (Type: Public)

We are particularly interested in vendors who incorporate discovery as part of ILS and vendors who are looking at different pricing models for purchase and maintenance. (Type: Academic)

[...] (Type: Public)

This ILS vendor was badly hurt by profit-squeezing tactics by its owners from about 2005 to 2011. Their performance the past couple of years has been much improved, but they have lost ground and market share, making us wonder if we will be forced to change at some point. (Type: Public)

I would say that Symphony is an average ILS, but the reporting tool is not sufficient. (Type: Academic)

Nothing to comment on. Very satisfied with our current system. (Type: Public)

Sirsi Dynix works well and is provided at a cheaper consortium price to public and school community libraries in South Australia. Spydus Civica was a better product but did cost more as we were in a small network. (Type: Public)

Being part of a Consortia tends to limit independent decision making. For example if there is a stong enough push by a group of libraries to change protocols, all other libraries within the consortia are expected to follow suit despite not agreeing to the initial request. (Type: Public)

Support is very good, SirsiDynix is very progressive in utilizing the system for more than just a catalogue and moving to the cloud to eliminate local issues. (Type: Government Agency)

The reports module on Sirsi/Dynix Symphony is very unreliable. (Type: Public)

I am of the opinion that now is the time to explore ILS open source. (Type: Public)

We are generally happy with the vendor but are pushing some of the boundaries of functionality - e.g automatic renewal function being purchased as custom work. (Type: Academic)

Generally happy with Symphony except for antiquated reporting functionality & output. We don't use Symphony to manage electronic resources. (Type: Special)

Development of the eRC should not be only focusing on public libraries but other types of libraries too such as government and other specialized libraries. ERMS should have a more extensive kbase offering a lot more from pure science, social sciences, law content, in the formats of ebooks and ejournals. Knowlegbase or vendor partnership seems to be focusing on public libraries right now. Therefore the offering of eRC to our clients as it stands is not so relevant for them. (Type: Law)

Where SIRSI excels in its new BLUEcloud Suite, its telephone system (SVA) for phone account interaction and for autodialing patrons with holds requests dismal. Attention needs to be given to this system. I am seeing software and service improvements from SIRSI at rates far greater than past years. They have a good vision in place to remain viable in the ILS industry for the long haul. (Type: Public)

Trying buy and upgrade as we can afford it (Type: Public)

Magale Library has only had our new ILS one full year and we LOVE it. The consortium cloud association is absolutely GREAT! (Type: Academic)

We are in the midst of transitioning to Alma/Primo. GoLive is scheduled for early January. (Type: Academic)

We are about to study the possibility to go for an open source ILS, for this we are preparing for a research and experiment project (for~ 3 years validity) in order to make a clear scientific decision (Type: Academic)

Support are exemplary. I really cannot fault them. Library Relations manager is excellent and it's great to have a monthly catch up with the company, product development etc. They involve their customers in the product development cycle - I am on the Strategic Partnership Program for several developments I want to influence. They may be slow catching up with the other vendors' offerings but I trust that what they are developing will actually work for us because we are helping design it. (Type: Academic)

We are part of the[...] so we don't usually deal directly with the vendor so some of these questions don't apply to us. Thanks Marshall! (Type: Public)

SirsiDynix is not particularly responsive to product development or enhancement in the APAC market - is very focused on its North American market. (Type: Public)

Our ILS is managed by a state wide consortium. All 23 counties participate, with some additional school libraries, community colleges etc. We do not have the ability to chose or implement our own ILS. (Type: Public)

Il est tr�s difficile de trouver un SIGB g�rant bien les notices d'autorit� et un OPAC exploitant bien les renvois dans ces notices d'autorit�. Difficile �galement de trouver SIGB int�grant un outil complet de gestion des ressources �lectroniques ("Electronic Resource Manager" ERM) en particulier pour la gestion des contrats, des conditions d'acc�s, etc. (Type: Academic)

We will be looking at implementing SiriDynix BLUEcloud Marketplace as our discovery interface in the future. (Type: Academic)

We need to stabilize expenses over time (a not-for-profit company is desirable); to reduce the amount of specialized in-house knowledge needed for the ILS and Discovery (OSs and multiple platforms); to license a product that is being actively and vigorously developed to incorporate new standards (expenses of modernizing legacy products is a big stumbling block); and last but not least, to provide our users a seamless and integrated user experience with all aspects of library holdings, whether books, ebooks, articles, ILL, media, or whatever. We could buy at great expense all that SirsiDynix offers, and still still be waiting for them to deliver on promises of functionalities that WMS already delivers or will deliver in the near future. (Type: Academic)

The company, it's support staff and the ILS product are too rigid. I think the company is too busy coming up with "extras" and they have lost sight of their main product, doing only a mediocre job at keeping it updated and relevant. (Type: Public)

Vendor support from ILS product is going the same way as all vendor support seemingly as gone in the recent years, way down. Sales staff continue to make promises that the product cannot yet deliver and very little care is taken in any transaction. We feel our ILS vendor takes a great amount of money for support but hardly wants to know what we need and expect. (Type: Public)

SirsiDynix has been slow to migrate functionality into Enterprise, their OPAC discovery layer. Many features expected as standard, like the ability to place ILL and purchase requests, have not yet been included. Other areas have been gradually improving. (Type: Public)

Regarding company satisfaction, keeping annual maintenance increases at a minimum would be appreciated due to budget restrictions. (Type: Medical)

We are very encouraged by the development of SirsiDynix's BLUEcloud products. We believe that this is the direction that they should be going and we are seeing continued progress in this area. We are excited about the products already under development or on the roadmap. We especially appreciate being involved through its SPP (Strategic Partner Program) Being able to give our input as to what we want in a system is a fantastic opportunity. (Type: Academic)

As we are severely understaffed, we aren't really able to consider a change. (Type: Academic)

We have found that SirsiDynix has become more responsive to its customer base in the last couple years. They have made a concerted effort to involve customers and gather input early in the development cycle to shape new products, new modules, based on customer needs. Instead of "here's our finished new product, what do you think?", the new model is "here's the direction we're heading, here are some wireframes of what we're thinking it will look like, what do you think?" (Type: Consortium)

[...] (Type: Public)

thank you (Type: Public)

As with many ILS vendors, it seems like product release dates are set by the marketing department and not the developers. The latest 'update' to their Enterprise discovery layer has provten to be particularly buggy.latest 'update' to their Enterprise discovery layer has provten to be particularly buggy. (Type: Public)

Primary difficulty with ILS is minimal implementation of available functionality by library system. i.e. ILS could provide functionality needed by library system. Library system simply has not implemented needed functionality from ILS. It is causing a review of available systems -- possible migration. (Type: Law)

On the topic of the discovery layer, within our libraries, not all, but several branches have severe Internet bandwidth constraints. Even after adjusting router prioritization in favor of the Enterprise Discovery layer, it is an extremely slow search and retrieval experience within those branches. For this reason, the full deployment of the discovery layer awaits significant bandwidth upgrades. As such, the discovery layer is not high profile and we are calling it Beta. SirsiDynix eRC for presenting econtent (from OverDrive and others) into Enterprise has been fraught with slowdowns also. We have not inserted our eRC into the currently launched Beta profile. While this should not reflect negatively on the vendor, it does bring to light the difficulties and limitations in bringing up network-intensive products with limited network resources. We do fault the vendor for not presenting system requirements for network connectivity for our Enterprise set-up. This experience, combined with our observation of slowdowns and unavailability with BlueCloud Admin (used to administer eRC (eResource Central) has us wondering about the wisdom of embracing the SD BLUEcloud suite. (Type: Public)

In mid 2013 we joined a newly-created cloud-based consortium that was planned to cover a number of libraries in our TAFE sector. In the event, we were tacked on to an existing cloud instance of Symphony belonging to a much smaller institution than us. We have had nothing but trouble since then. Basically SirsiDynix did not understand that we wanted our LMS to appear to all our clients and staff as quite independent of the other TAFE institution. Attempts to make our system function as well as it used to have only had limited success. I think that Symphony is not well suited to a consortium of the type that we wanted. (Type: Academic)

Sirsi has great support. Sirsi's costs are high, but the support is great. As a large library with a talented and experienced IT staff we are repeatedly frustrated by Sirsi's inability to allow our inhouse staff to do installations and maintenance. Sirsi's installation instructions contain errors that prevent the instructions from being successfully followed. Sirsi techs know which instructions to skip or do the opposite but that knowledge is not used to correct the installation documents. (Type: Academic)

We're tired of the "if it's a useful feature, let's charge extra for it" business model that SirsiDynix and other vendors employ. Things like APIs and web services should be part of the base installation, not outrageously-priced annual maintenance add-ons. So much of our data require API access to extract, which amounts to paying SirsiDynix annual maintenance to store our data, then paying additional maintenance to extract it. We're sick of being extorted. (Type: Academic)

A lot of stagnation in what is available vs what could be done. It is time for vendors to invest lest in keeping old products running and starting from scratch with some future proof products. (Type: State)

Not very responsive to our needs. Heavily focused on the United States e.g. in NZ we need much better financial accounting and reporting as we have rental items and overdue charges. Also the software is VERY dated now, has no flexibility and is extremely clumsy when trying to apply current expectations. One example of this is using online registration where we still can't add a cellphone number. Lots of promises, but little delivered. (Type: Public)

Cloud-based and integrated (really truly integrated) are on our priority list. (Type: Academic)

At this time, our [...] system is working great and Sirsi Dynix will be doing an upgrade in the near future. Our branch library in [...]is in the plan to change to the automated system in 2015. The number of items reflects both libraries. (Type: Public)

I answered questions about customer service as straight 5s, because I haven't used SirsiDynix customer service directly. I have used their training platform. I appreciate the quantity of information it includes and the various options for accessing it. However, I wish it were more broadly accessible to staff and easier to navigate. The number of items listed in our collection is much larger this year, but I've included electronic resources that we subscribe to, which I hadn't before. (Type: State)

Compared to other service fields, libraries are far behind in the technology we can offer our patrons to access the information we offer. We still make it so difficult for them to use our databases, our downloadable audio & e-books, and our online catalogs. (Type: Public)

We are satisfied with Symphony-SirsiDynix. We currently have the small library subscription which is pretty much turn-key. It functions well but the reports can be confusing. There are also several add-on features that cost more and while they would be nice additions, we cannot afford them at this time. This includes products like Director's Station, Serials, etc. (Type: Public)

We are part of a consortium and our ILS is a hosted SaaS implementation in year 5 of a 7 year contract. We will begin looking at vendors on the next year or so. (Type: Public)

System and data security is another area where our current ILS is not keeping up with industry standard. Alma vendor uses Gartner recommended security standards for it's cloud. Our security requirements are imposed by our parent organization. (Type: Special)

One issue I have with Sirsi/Dynix's service model is the "around the campfire" approach they take to handling calls. You speak to one person who makes notes based on his or her level of experience and knowledge of the product and the issue being described. These notes are forwarded to another person who then suggests a course of action based on THEIR level of experience and knowledge of the product and the understand they have achieved from reading the notes. If there is any level of cognitive dissonance in the notes, the recommendation may be (and has been) flawed. Note taking is a dying skill, as is reading with comprehension. (Type: School)

Having worked with this company's product for over 18 years the biggest issue that continues to haunt this company is rolling out products that are not ready for production. Also there is a huge delay in fixing much needed enhancement requests and bug issues. For example, the timeline of when their Social Library product will be visible on Mobile Devices. I will have to wait until at least July of next year before it will work for 50% of the audience we are trying to reach. (Type: Public)

I wasn't employed at my current institution when the most recent ILS was implemented, so I'm unable to answer that question. (Type: Academic)

SirsiDynix, while a good vendor overall has some problems with internal communication, and use of technical vocabularies. They seem to have a habit of misusing terms that have specific meanings, or inventing terms for things that already have established names in the technology / library sector. (Type: Academic)

Are are now in the SirsiDynix cloud with its SaaS product. We were very pleased with the migration and the problem-free functionality. (Type: Public)

[...] (Type: Public)

We have been a customer of Dynix since 1986 and so far, our customer support services have been excellent. Since we have such a small staff, implementing an open source ILS is unlikely at this time. (Type: Academic)

Symphony is a very stable product. We are now a hosted site and the support we have received has been excellent. The philosophy of the organization is very customer oriented and there are several programs in place to ensure our voice is heard while they are developing new products so that the end product better meets our needs. They are working very hard to stay ahead of the ever-changing face of libraries by offering new products while continuing to improve their core products. (Type: Public)

We went live with Enterprise in September, switching from Bibliocommons. It has been a nightmare, patrons are angry, staff and library boards are upset. It is almost as if we were the first libraries to get it, but that it not the case. It's been a disaster, crashing, not showing correct information, having to be rebooted. This is the 4th month now, and things are still going on, not stable. (Type: Public)

[...] which we belong decided on SirsiDynix. (Type: Public)

The state library handles all interactions with the vendor as the system is implemented state-wide. We occasionally provide feedback but do not have decision-making power. (Type: Public)

Would love to have a user friendly reporting system. (Type: Public)

They make many promises of new functionality that never transpires (Type: Public)

We are currently in the process of and/or discussing the addition of many new products offered by SirsiDynix Blue Cloud which may affect some of our perceptions in the future. (Type: Public)

currently considering migration to another, academic-based ILS in conjunction with other academic libraries in Montana. (Type: Academic)

Costly for smaller institutions. Expected to pay for enhanced functionality. (Type: Academic)

SirsiDynix have a bad habit of over promising and under delivering. Their new suite of Bluecloud products is too little too late and is taking too long to deliver, and imposes too many constraints on how we operate. Symphony feels old, tired and cludgy, and the Acquisitions and Serials modules are close to unusable. Not to mention the almost nonexistent support for electronic resources in the core product, followed up by the almost exclusive focus on ebooks rather than ejournals in the bluecloud suite... We would probably go elsewhere if we had the time and money to migrate. Support staff are helpful and friendly, but we don't want a relationship with them, we want a product that works! (Type: Academic)

Intota Discovery (Summon) and Assessment are seen as an interim low-cost solution to replace the Endeca UI over the next three years. We have been unable to secure funding to carry out a comprehensive review of library systems with a view to replacing the LMS and linked services. Externally hosted ('cloud') options will be seriously considered as part of a future review. Initial impressions are that Assessment will offer little or nothing more than current MetaLib and SFX services, which will also be superseded along with MetaLib Plus, for eresources management and discovery. (Type: Academic)

BlueCloud additions will breathe new life into SirsiDynix's Symphony product. (Type: Public)

We currently have BiblioCommons implemented as a discovery layer and are actively considering switching to an online catalogue offered by the ILS vendor instead. We are interested in learning more about the BLUEcloud modules from our vendor, as these become available. (Type: Public)

Local support for sirsi dynix implemented in 2013, this was done to improve turnaround for faults or developments. Also, local company had necessary expertise to move to a separate dut instance of symphony - a move from consortial based system. Previous support via uk based sirsi dynix (Type: Academic)

The number of titles includes print and electronic. It includes periodical titles, but not individual electronic issues. It also includes 9 database subscriptions. We have Sirsi Symphony through a consortium or we would never have been able to afford it. The issue is we are a medium-sized library with NO IT staff and it is very time-consuming as the intricacies of the program are no overly user-friendly which has caused much frustration. We are going to begin using the Cloud Reports feature which may make things better, but I cannot say if that is true at this point. (Type: Public)

Support issues are directed to [...] in the [...] . [...] either rectify the issue or forward it onto SirsiDynix support. [...] consortium libraries do not have any direct contact with the vendor. (Type: Public)

Even though scores above are mid-range, I'm not sure we'd be any happier with other vendor products. (Type: Consortium)

Would like to see a mobile workstation (circulation, inventory) that would work on device of our choice instead of being restricted to the hand held device that they required us to purchase - very expensive, small screen. The ability to load WorkFlows onto a tablet would be much cheaper. (Type: Academic)

We have been with SirsiDynix for 14 years and it has worked very well. We also went through a migration last year when our law school was acquired by another university. The migration was relatively painless and everyone was very helpful along the way. My sales rep and all of the employees are very easy to work with, very nice, and very professional!! (Type: Law)

I left a couple of spots blank because I do not know about the specific terms of the contract with our ILS on whether an open source ILS is something our network would consider. (Type: Public)

[...] (Type: Public)

As with any automation company, there are highs and lows in expectations. We appreciate that SIrsiDynix is a robust, large company which appears to be prioritize being responsive to its customers. The implementation of new or enhanced products seems to take a long time at times. Support is quite good with quick response times. The company certainly does business with a wide range of library types. (Type: Public)

2.5 years ago we pulled out of a consortium that was going to migrate to OCLC WMS. We wished to stay with SirsiDynix Symphony, opting to migrate to their SAAS option. (Type: Academic)

More than 2/3rds of the items in the collection are digital or only accessible online. (Type: Public)

While SirsiDynix is not great, it is the best of the available options. SaaS is one of the most important parts of our ILS, and it has provided great value and functionality for our library system. (Type: Public)

[...] (Type: Public)

Generally feel that our system is ok but not great - it is not always flexible enough to meet our needs and can be challenging to get things working correctly. Open source is interesting but we don't really have the staff resources to support it. (Type: Public)

Symphony is built on very old indexing technology that is difficult to manage. (Type: Academic)

While the current Symphony ILS is inadequate for our current and future needs, we are optimistic that SirsiDynix'x developments with the BlueCloud suite of products will get us closer to our vision. At the same time, we are encouraged by the collaboration that has begun between EBSCO and SirsiDynix, and would love to see that we would be able to integrate the two products into a fully-featured and scalable library services platform. (Type: Academic)

We went through an RFI last year to review ILS products on the market. Because of the recent merger/acquisition of Innovative and Polaris and because we saw no drastic differences between products we have decided to stay with SirsiDynix for the next 3-5 years. (Type: Public)

Some of the developments that we would like to implement have additional costs (e.g. reporting, statistical tools). A lot of the functionality of forthcoming BlueCloud products has an additional cost. Not easy to do work on custom reports as the training for APIs is expensive - compared to other systems where it comes with the product. Difficult to customise the OPAC, set-up is quite prescriptive. (Type: Museum)

ILS

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