Statistical Report for Voyager
| 2022 Survey Results |
| Product: Voyager |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 20 |
1 | | 2 | 3 | 1 | | 5 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 5.35 | 6 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 20 |
| 1 | 3 | 3 | | 1 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 5.30 | 6 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 20 |
| 1 | | | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 7.00 | 8 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 20 |
1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4.25 | 4 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 20 |
1 | | | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 8 | 6.15 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 20 |
| 1 | | 1 | 1 | | 5 | 2 | 8 | 2 | 8 | 6.70 | 8 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 20 |
3 | 1 | | | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 5.70 | 6 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 17 |
1 | | 2 | 1 | | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 6.41 | 6 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 20 |
13 | 65.00% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 20 |
4 | 20.00% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 20 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 10637491 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 0 |
|---|
| Academic | 12 |
|---|
| School | 0 |
|---|
| Consortia | 0 |
|---|
| Special | 0 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 3 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 4 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 7 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 4 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 2 |
|---|
| 2021 Survey Results |
| Product: Voyager |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 24 |
| | 2 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 3 | | 4 | 5.25 | 5 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 24 |
| | 1 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 2 | | 7 | 5.25 | 6 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 24 |
| | | 1 | 2 | | 4 | 4 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 7.17 | 8 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 24 |
| 4 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 4 | | 2 | 3 | | 2 | 3.83 | 3 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 23 |
| | | 2 | | | 4 | 7 | 8 | 2 | 8 | 7.00 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 23 |
| | | | | 1 | 5 | 4 | 10 | 3 | 8 | 7.39 | 8 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 23 |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | | | 3 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 6.87 | 7 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 19 |
3 | 1 | | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 4.68 | 5 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 24 |
17 | 70.83% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 24 |
6 | 25.00% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 24 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 9654241 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 0 |
|---|
| Academic | 13 |
|---|
| School | 0 |
|---|
| Consortia | 0 |
|---|
| Special | 1 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 2 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 5 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 6 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 7 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 3 |
|---|
| 2020 Survey Results |
| Product: Voyager |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 32 |
| | | 3 | 1 | 9 | 6 | 12 | 1 | | 7 | 5.81 | 6 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 32 |
| | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 5.53 | 6 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 32 |
| | 1 | | | 2 | 2 | 15 | 9 | 3 | 7 | 7.13 | 7 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 31 |
2 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 1 | | 6 | 4.00 | 4 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 31 |
| | | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 7 | 6.77 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 31 |
| | | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7.13 | 8 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 30 |
| | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 10 | 7 | 6.90 | 7 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 24 |
5 | | 4 | 2 | | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 4.38 | 5 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 32 |
24 | 75.00% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 32 |
6 | 18.75% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 32 |
0 | 0.00% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 8861679 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 0 |
|---|
| Academic | 23 |
|---|
| School | 0 |
|---|
| Consortia | 0 |
|---|
| Special | 0 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 4 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 7 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 7 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 9 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 4 |
|---|
| 2019 Survey Results |
| Product: Voyager |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 51 |
| | 1 | 6 | 6 | 13 | 8 | 10 | 7 | | 5 | 5.55 | 5 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 51 |
| 1 | 2 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 1 | 6 | 5.33 | 5 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 51 |
| | | | 2 | 2 | 12 | 15 | 17 | 3 | 8 | 7.02 | 7 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 50 |
2 | 8 | 10 | 9 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3.46 | 3 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 50 |
| | 1 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 13 | 11 | 10 | 1 | 6 | 6.12 | 6 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 51 |
| | 1 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 16 | 4 | 8 | 6.63 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 50 |
2 | | | 2 | 7 | 19 | 10 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 5.34 | 5 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 51 |
| | 3 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 10 | 16 | 9 | 6.86 | 8 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 48 |
13 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 3.54 | 3 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 51 |
42 | 82.35% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 51 |
9 | 17.65% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 51 |
47 | 92.16% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 5433015 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 0 |
|---|
| Academic | 37 |
|---|
| School | 0 |
|---|
| Consortia | 0 |
|---|
| Special | 2 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 2 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 11 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 11 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 12 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 11 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 4 |
|---|
| 2018 Survey Results |
| Product: Voyager |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 71 |
1 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 6 | 15 | 21 | 11 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 5.27 | 6 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 71 |
1 | | 3 | 14 | 10 | 13 | 17 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 4.99 | 5 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 71 |
1 | | | 2 | 6 | 4 | 18 | 17 | 17 | 6 | 6 | 6.58 | 7 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 70 |
4 | 11 | 5 | 11 | 14 | 9 | 9 | 5 | | 2 | 4 | 3.74 | 4 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 70 |
1 | | 2 | 1 | 6 | 8 | 17 | 16 | 16 | 3 | 6 | 6.29 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 68 |
1 | | 2 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 14 | 19 | 17 | 3 | 7 | 6.40 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 70 |
1 | | | 1 | 17 | 20 | 10 | 8 | 11 | 2 | 5 | 5.61 | 5 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 68 |
4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 18 | 17 | 8 | 6.53 | 8 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 68 |
20 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 3.21 | 3 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 71 |
59 | 83.10% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 71 |
18 | 25.35% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 71 |
61 | 85.92% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 4703474 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 0 |
|---|
| Academic | 57 |
|---|
| School | 0 |
|---|
| Consortia | 0 |
|---|
| Special | 0 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 1 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 12 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 12 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 20 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 20 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 5 |
|---|
| 2017 Survey Results |
| Product: Voyager |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 119 |
| 1 | 6 | 9 | 11 | 28 | 18 | 28 | 17 | 1 | 5 | 5.66 | 6 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 118 |
| 2 | 5 | 8 | 18 | 26 | 15 | 22 | 18 | 4 | 5 | 5.61 | 6 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 116 |
| | | 3 | 3 | 9 | 17 | 41 | 36 | 7 | 7 | 6.95 | 7 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 117 |
8 | 16 | 18 | 12 | 20 | 9 | 14 | 13 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 3.81 | 4 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 119 |
| 1 | 3 | 1 | 16 | 14 | 25 | 29 | 26 | 4 | 7 | 6.23 | 6 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 118 |
| 2 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 17 | 26 | 27 | 23 | 7 | 7 | 6.23 | 6 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 117 |
1 | | 1 | 5 | 13 | 57 | 10 | 12 | 13 | 5 | 5 | 5.53 | 5 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 118 |
3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 13 | 17 | 16 | 23 | 28 | 9 | 6.57 | 7 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 117 |
20 | 15 | 18 | 7 | 15 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 3.56 | 3 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 119 |
83 | 69.75% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 119 |
15 | 12.61% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 119 |
113 | 94.96% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 2797448 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 0 |
|---|
| Academic | 91 |
|---|
| School | 0 |
|---|
| Consortia | 0 |
|---|
| Special | 0 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 3 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 22 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 25 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 34 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 27 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 6 |
|---|
| 2016 Survey Results |
| Product: Voyager |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 117 |
2 | 4 | 3 | 9 | 13 | 16 | 29 | 21 | 17 | 3 | 6 | 5.58 | 6 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 116 |
2 | 3 | 5 | 14 | 11 | 18 | 23 | 20 | 12 | 8 | 6 | 5.47 | 6 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 117 |
1 | | 3 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 19 | 31 | 31 | 16 | 7 | 6.81 | 7 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 115 |
9 | 10 | 26 | 17 | 9 | 19 | 13 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3.58 | 3 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 115 |
1 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 17 | 16 | 28 | 27 | 4 | 7 | 5.98 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 112 |
3 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 11 | 13 | 16 | 22 | 26 | 9 | 8 | 6.03 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 112 |
2 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 22 | 48 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 5 | 5.12 | 5 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 116 |
2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 12 | 14 | 13 | 30 | 11 | 25 | 7 | 6.38 | 7 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 117 |
26 | 13 | 10 | 7 | 14 | 17 | 7 | 11 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 3.56 | 4 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 117 |
79 | 67.52% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 117 |
18 | 15.38% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 117 |
107 | 91.45% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 3728028 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 0 |
|---|
| Academic | 90 |
|---|
| School | 0 |
|---|
| Consortia | 0 |
|---|
| Special | 2 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 3 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 22 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 22 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 32 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 27 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 8 |
|---|
| 2015 Survey Results |
| Product: Voyager |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 115 |
1 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 13 | 19 | 33 | 16 | 21 | 1 | 6 | 5.75 | 6 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 115 |
| 1 | 2 | 8 | 11 | 23 | 29 | 17 | 18 | 6 | 6 | 5.90 | 6 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 113 |
| | 1 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 19 | 25 | 32 | 17 | 8 | 6.90 | 7 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 113 |
1 | 17 | 16 | 11 | 17 | 18 | 21 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 4.05 | 4 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 113 |
| | 3 | 7 | 12 | 21 | 21 | 22 | 19 | 8 | 7 | 6.05 | 6 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 113 |
2 | | 5 | 5 | 13 | 17 | 14 | 21 | 30 | 6 | 8 | 6.08 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 111 |
1 | | 2 | 4 | 13 | 53 | 14 | 16 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5.38 | 5 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 115 |
5 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 16 | 19 | 22 | 17 | 22 | 7 | 6.27 | 7 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 109 |
24 | 11 | 10 | 12 | 7 | 13 | 6 | 10 | 10 | 6 | 0 | 3.67 | 3 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 120 |
82 | 68.33% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 120 |
17 | 14.17% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 120 |
107 | 89.17% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 2289918 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 0 |
|---|
| Academic | 85 |
|---|
| School | 1 |
|---|
| Consortia | 0 |
|---|
| Special | 2 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 5 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 21 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 28 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 26 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 27 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 7 |
|---|
| 2014 Survey Results |
| Product: Voyager |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 149 |
2 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 15 | 16 | 38 | 37 | 22 | 2 | 6 | 5.78 | 6 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 148 |
| 5 | 6 | 12 | 16 | 20 | 33 | 31 | 20 | 5 | 6 | 5.66 | 6 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 148 |
| | | 4 | 3 | 8 | 25 | 39 | 56 | 13 | 8 | 7.11 | 7 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 145 |
6 | 16 | 21 | 17 | 18 | 16 | 24 | 19 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 4.17 | 4 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 147 |
2 | 1 | 3 | 12 | 11 | 27 | 23 | 38 | 24 | 6 | 7 | 5.93 | 6 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 147 |
1 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 12 | 24 | 30 | 32 | 22 | 9 | 7 | 5.90 | 6 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 146 |
1 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 22 | 65 | 18 | 11 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 5.23 | 5 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 149 |
10 | 5 | 9 | 5 | 11 | 26 | 12 | 26 | 27 | 18 | 8 | 5.66 | 6 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 145 |
35 | 26 | 14 | 7 | 15 | 18 | 12 | 9 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 3.02 | 2 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 151 |
102 | 67.55% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 151 |
26 | 17.22% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 151 |
133 | 88.08% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 1939716 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 0 |
|---|
| Academic | 128 |
|---|
| School | 0 |
|---|
| Consortia | 0 |
|---|
| Special | 3 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 4 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 39 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 32 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 36 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 29 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 5 |
|---|
| 2013 Survey Results |
| Product: Voyager |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 112 |
1 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 11 | 21 | 42 | 19 | 1 | 7 | 6.15 | 7 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 112 |
| 2 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 16 | 24 | 32 | 22 | 3 | 7 | 6.20 | 7 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 112 |
| | | 2 | 4 | 4 | 12 | 31 | 43 | 16 | 8 | 7.31 | 8 |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 111 |
1 | 6 | 14 | 17 | 7 | 17 | 21 | 18 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 4.80 | 5 |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 110 |
1 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 11 | 21 | 42 | 14 | 2 | 7 | 6.02 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 110 |
| 5 | 2 | 5 | 10 | 14 | 26 | 31 | 15 | 2 | 7 | 5.86 | 6 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 109 |
| 2 | 1 | 8 | 7 | 56 | 10 | 12 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 5.39 | 5 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 110 |
2 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 5 | 15 | 23 | 24 | 17 | 13 | 7 | 6.21 | 6 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 110 |
27 | 12 | 13 | 6 | 9 | 15 | 12 | 9 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 3.28 | 3 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 114 |
59 | 51.75% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 114 |
30 | 26.32% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 114 |
103 | 90.35% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 1534747 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 0 |
|---|
| Academic | 85 |
|---|
| School | 0 |
|---|
| Consortia | 0 |
|---|
| Special | 0 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 2 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 21 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 25 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 29 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 24 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 3 |
|---|
| 2012 Survey Results |
| Product: Voyager |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 171 |
4 | 1 | 8 | 11 | 13 | 21 | 37 | 55 | 20 | 1 | 7 | 5.75 | 6 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 171 |
1 | 3 | 8 | 15 | 10 | 29 | 28 | 43 | 30 | 4 | 7 | 5.81 | 6 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 169 |
3 | 3 | 6 | 11 | 16 | 22 | 29 | 54 | 25 | | 7 | 5.76 | 6 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 168 |
4 | 5 | 5 | 13 | 17 | 23 | 33 | 45 | 22 | 1 | 7 | 5.57 | 6 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 162 |
8 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 28 | 65 | 15 | 24 | 10 | 2 | 5 | 5.01 | 5 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 170 |
7 | 3 | 6 | 12 | 12 | 33 | 20 | 38 | 14 | 25 | 7 | 5.81 | 6 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 167 |
32 | 17 | 19 | 16 | 9 | 32 | 16 | 12 | 5 | 9 | 0 | 3.59 | 3 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 172 |
84 | 48.84% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 172 |
56 | 32.56% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 172 |
154 | 89.53% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 1439754 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 0 |
|---|
| Academic | 136 |
|---|
| School | 0 |
|---|
| Consortia | 0 |
|---|
| Special | 5 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 6 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 22 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 39 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 53 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 30 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 4 |
|---|
| 2011 Survey Results |
| Product: Voyager |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 154 |
1 | | 4 | 17 | 5 | 18 | 27 | 56 | 22 | 4 | 7 | 6.07 | 7 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 152 |
| 1 | 8 | 16 | 7 | 16 | 26 | 44 | 31 | 3 | 7 | 6.00 | 7 |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 154 |
1 | 1 | 4 | 10 | 12 | 16 | 22 | 54 | 27 | 7 | 7 | 6.21 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 152 |
3 | | 7 | 11 | 5 | 18 | 23 | 47 | 30 | 8 | 7 | 6.16 | 7 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 149 |
2 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 13 | 62 | 16 | 19 | 15 | 9 | 5 | 5.52 | 5 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 154 |
5 | 2 | | 12 | 10 | 30 | 17 | 34 | 24 | 20 | 7 | 6.10 | 7 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 152 |
25 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 12 | 21 | 17 | 13 | 10 | 6 | 0 | 3.79 | 4 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 154 |
60 | 38.96% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 154 |
62 | 40.26% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 154 |
139 | 90.26% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 1940682 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 0 |
|---|
| Academic | 117 |
|---|
| School | 0 |
|---|
| Consortia | 0 |
|---|
| Special | 4 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 8 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 19 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 36 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 51 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 23 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 6 |
|---|
| 2010 Survey Results |
| Product: Voyager |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 123 |
| | 4 | 3 | 10 | 25 | 25 | 42 | 13 | 1 | 7 | 6.01 | 6 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 123 |
| 1 | 5 | 5 | 11 | 18 | 30 | 39 | 13 | 1 | 7 | 5.90 | 6 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 120 |
| 4 | 4 | 4 | 11 | 21 | 32 | 23 | 20 | 1 | 6 | 5.79 | 6 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 118 |
| 3 | 3 | 6 | 11 | 52 | 14 | 18 | 11 | | 5 | 5.33 | 5 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 121 |
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 13 | 27 | 15 | 28 | 17 | 7 | 7 | 5.77 | 6 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 120 |
11 | 16 | 16 | 14 | 9 | 18 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 5 | 4.07 | 4 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 124 |
40 | 32.26% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 124 |
64 | 51.61% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 124 |
106 | 85.48% |
|---|
| Average Collection size: |
| 1095582 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|
| Public | 1 |
|---|
| Academic | 97 |
|---|
| School | 0 |
|---|
| Consortia | 0 |
|---|
| Special | 2 |
|---|
| Size Category | Count |
|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 0 |
|---|
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 21 |
|---|
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 27 |
|---|
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 37 |
|---|
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 17 |
|---|
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 2 |
|---|
| 2009 Survey Results |
| Product: Voyager |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 164 |
| | 8 | 10 | 9 | 31 | 39 | 41 | 22 | 4 | 7 | 5.91 | 6 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 162 |
1 | 1 | 7 | 12 | 17 | 23 | 35 | 45 | 19 | 2 | 7 | 5.73 | 6 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 162 |
1 | 3 | 11 | 15 | 12 | 20 | 26 | 44 | 25 | 5 | 7 | 5.72 | 6 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 153 |
2 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 18 | 54 | 17 | 17 | 18 | 6 | 5 | 5.27 | 5 |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 160 |
11 | 5 | 5 | 11 | 14 | 22 | 20 | 42 | 17 | 13 | 7 | 5.51 | 6 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 164 |
24 | 19 | 23 | 11 | 8 | 23 | 16 | 19 | 12 | 9 | 0 | 3.97 | 4 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 164 |
31 | 18.90% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 164 |
89 | 54.27% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 164 |
142 | 86.59% |
|---|
| 2008 Survey Results |
| Product: Voyager |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 87 |
| | 6 | 5 | 8 | 5 | 23 | 21 | 17 | 2 | 6 | 6.01 | 6 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 87 |
1 | 1 | 5 | 9 | 5 | 16 | 15 | 23 | 11 | 1 | 7 | 5.59 | 6 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 87 |
1 | 4 | 3 | 10 | 5 | 13 | 19 | 14 | 14 | 4 | 6 | 5.57 | 6 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 0 |
not applicable |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 87 |
5 | 3 | 10 | 7 | 7 | 12 | 11 | 13 | 13 | 6 | 7 | 5.14 | 5 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 86 |
10 | 7 | 10 | 6 | 4 | 14 | 7 | 10 | 4 | 14 | 5 | 4.66 | 5 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 87 |
19 | 21.84% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 87 |
40 | 45.98% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 87 |
83 | 95.40% |
|---|
| 2007 Survey Results |
| Product: Voyager |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
|---|
| Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
|---|
| ILS Satisfaction | 83 |
| 1 | 3 | 12 | 3 | 17 | 19 | 22 | 5 | 1 | 7 | 5.51 | 6 |
|---|
| ILS Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Print Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Electronic Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
|---|
| Company Satisfaction | 110 |
1 | 5 | 9 | 14 | 13 | 17 | 24 | 21 | 5 | 1 | 6 | 4.93 | 5 |
|---|
| Support Satisfaction | 108 |
4 | 5 | 9 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 18 | 19 | 10 | 2 | 7 | 4.88 | 5 |
|---|
| Support Improvement | 0 |
not applicable |
|---|
| Company Loyalty | 105 |
16 | 2 | 11 | 13 | 9 | 25 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 4.15 | 5 |
|---|
| Open Source Interest | 107 |
10 | 8 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 12 | 15 | 12 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 4.35 | 4 |
|---|
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|
| Considering new ILS | 111 |
24 | 21.62% |
|---|
| Considering new Interface | 111 |
53 | 47.75% |
|---|
| System Installed on time? | 111 |
1 | 0.90% |
|---|
2022 : gen: 5.35 company 6.15 loyalty 5.70 support 6.70
2021 : gen: 5.25 company 7.00 loyalty 6.87 support 7.39
2020 : gen: 5.81 company 6.77 loyalty 6.90 support 7.13
2019 : gen: 5.55 company 6.12 loyalty 6.86 support 6.63
2018 : gen: 5.27 company 6.29 loyalty 6.53 support 6.40
2017 : gen: 5.66 company 6.23 loyalty 6.57 support 6.23
2016 : gen: 5.58 company 5.98 loyalty 6.38 support 6.03
2015 : gen: 5.75 company 6.05 loyalty 6.27 support 6.08
2014 : gen: 5.78 company 5.93 loyalty 5.66 support 5.90
2013 : gen: 6.15 company 6.02 loyalty 6.21 support 5.86
2012 : gen: 5.75 company 5.76 loyalty 5.81 support 5.57
2011 : gen: 6.07 company 6.21 loyalty 6.10 support 6.16
2010 : gen: 6.01 company 5.90 loyalty 5.77 support 5.79
2009 : gen: 5.91 company 5.73 loyalty 5.51 support 5.72
2008 : gen: 6.01 company 5.59 loyalty 5.14 support 5.57
2007 : gen: 5.51 company 4.93 loyalty 4.15 support 4.88
Comments
Additional comments to questions above:
We subscribe to only a handful of electronic resources, so we do not have much of a need for a system that can manage such resources.
Customer support for the ILS is about the same as last year, so I rated the answer to that question as a 5. We are happy with customer support overall.
We don't have a separate discovery interface, and cannot consider one due to the fact that we have no money for one. Our budget is minimal currently, and is stretched as far as it can go. When we begin to look for a replacement system--which we will need to do since our current contract will be ending--we hope that we will get a discovery interface as part of whatever system we choose.
(Type: State)
Switching from Primo discovery layer to EDS
(Type: Academic)
The procurement and implementation of a next gen system will be a multi-year project. In order to migrate to a new system we MUST have: combined ILS/ERMS functionality; support for non-MARC formats, such as MODS and MADS; linked open data functionality; and APIs to enable us to build our own solutions to meet the Library's unique requirements.
(Type: National)
Have been impressed by the improvement in support from Ex Libris over the past year to 18 months. Much improved and probably the most responsive of all vendors I deal with
(Type: Academic)
We have signed an agreement with OCLC WMS to migrate to this system in the Spring of 2015. We have not yet notified Ex Libris of this intention.
(Type: Academic)
Updated the collection size to represent roughly 110,000 print/media items and 120,000 electronic items - mostly ebooks.
(Type: Academic)
We are a member of a large consortium which is beginning to look for a new ILS. If it were up to us, we would be using OCLC WMS right now. In the current environment, consortia can be an impediment rather than a help to libraries who would like to customize for their current customer and staff needs.
(Type: Academic)
[...]
(Type: Academic)
The product fulfills its purpose. We are aware of new developments and are following those closely, some of them probably represent improved functionalities that we would welcome, whilst some of our specific requirements may not be met even with new-generation systems, at least not immediatly.
(Type: National)
We have been on Voyager over 10 years and would like to move to a more modern system but there are not many choices for a big library like us. It looks Alma is the only possibility but I do not think it is ready for us. We will have to wait a bit longer or go with Alma if we can get extra budget.
(Type: Special)
We are tied to West [...] and whatever they choose to do.
(Type: Academic)
Ex Libris' Alma seems targeted to the very large academic libraries. It's a whole lot of software (and very expensive) for the smaller academic libraries.
(Type: Academic)
We are currently in the process of signing a contract with OCLC for WorldShare Management System and WorldCat Local/Discovery. Implementation will probably take place next year (2015).
(Type: Academic)
There was a cumbersome process for submitting cases to the vendor for customer support, and few cases reached resolution in a timely manner. This process has been streamlined now, with much better communication from the vendor regarding the status of a case. Most cases are resolved, and when a solution is not possible, we're informed that the case is being submitted to a research and development team. This is a big improvement.
(Type: Academic)
Tender result is due shortly.
(Type: Academic)
We are already abstracting out the discovery layer to Blacklight. As the University rolls out a new financial system, we are planning to investigate moving acquisitions out of the ILS as well. That leaves only Circulation and Cataloging to replace with a new ILS.
(Type: Academic)
We have been thinking about a new ILS for a couple of years now, but it doesn't seem that there is anything out there that would serve our needs AND has a proven track record.
(Type: Academic)
I feel ExLibris recieves the contempt of familiarity here. That said, last year's (spring 2014) RFI cmte was completely underwhelmed by all the ILS vendor products we reviewed. There is really nothing available that inspires us in the library management system market. ProQuest's vaproware ILS was the most exciting, but as an early adopter[...] of Voyager in the early '90s we are apparently not willing to be guinea pigs for a new pitch. (I'd love to get in early and beta the PQ vaporware, but I am only one voice from 50+). Our Open Source experinece has been through the [...] consortium - which just lost its two best new-coding coders to better pay elsewhere. Hence the risks of open source appear even riskier.
(Type: Academic)
We are using a product that will be unsupported after Jan. 2015. We must change products but are part of a consortium and the decision is complicated. Members represent small, medium, and large libraries and, as a group, have very limited choices. Only a few vendor products can handle a large consortium representing thousands of print and electronic recourses.
(Type: Academic)
Libraries need to move beyond the traditional ILS and compete on better discoverability. (I don't have the answers, only the questions!)
(Type: Academic)
We are not sure which vendors we will consider for a possible new ILS. I believe III has been mentioned, but that is dependent on many factors. We do not have the staff to implement an open source ILS.
(Type: Academic)
For the most part, satisfied with what I've seen so far with Alma.
(Type: Academic)
We've been on our current ILS since 1996. The feeling is that libraries our size don't fit well with the current vendor's focus, and the price point for moving to their library platform is prohibitive. WMS offers significant cost savings while adding discovery, license management, and analytics. It will also allow us to leverage the relationship we already have with OCLC and our data in WorldCat.
(Type: Academic)
we have removed ebooks from the voyager ILS and applied vufind over both voyager and summon. I changed the above information, but wasn't really sure how to 'rate' Vufind vs the existing ILS (since VF is neither a discovery system nor an ILS) the first 4 questions were rating VF and the rest summon/voyager
(Type: Academic)
We would like to implement a next-gen ILS, but we do not feel the products have matured enough yet. We are waiting 1-2 years before making any decisions.
(Type: Academic)
The Library plans to migrate to the Ex Libris solutions of Alma and Primo, for library management and discovery, respectively. Initial work has begun in this quarter, and is expected to complete by mid-July 2015. It marks a significant business shift (as well as technological) and both changes will need to be managed effectively.
(Type: Academic)
It is my understanding that Ex Libris was migrating to a new customer support system during the time we were having extreme difficulty with getting customer support. Now that they have completed the migration, service has somewhat improved but still has a ways to go before meeting expectations.
(Type: Academic)
Currently an RFP for all [...] is out for bidding for a new Library Management System.
(Type: Academic)
We are looking forward to the possibilities inherent in a shared library services platform across our 24-campus system to facilitate collaborative management of e-resources, reciprocal borrowing privileges, etc., that are not well supported by the standalone ILS systems.
(Type: Academic)
We are now actively seeking to drive out cost from our ILS implementation. The additional tools need to manage electronic content have been acquired elsewhere and the ILS is used basically to circulate materials. Acquisitions is handled directly in university systems, cataloging could be done elsewhere, actual content is housed in other systems. The ILS is now one of several systems / databases which is being harvested into our discovery space.
(Type: Academic)
The Voyager product is antiquated and does not include all of the features that we feel it should. The functionality that is there is not seamless. The Ex Libris improvements to Voyager sometimes break functions that are working. And sometimes it takes an enhancement request to get the features working again. Documentation is not updated or as clear as we would like it to be. Ex Libris does not have as good of a downtime notification system for Voyager as it does for their other products.
(Type: Academic)
Voyager is old and inflexible and there is no real development going on. We are interested in looking at other options but would prefer to see a wider range of viable products in the marketplace. We will also be participating in planning for potential collaborative options at the provincial level. We use ProQuest Intota for ERM as Voyager is not strong in ERM. Voyager has mature functionality for print, but is not flexible in the ways we would expect of a new system and in our environment that is now based far more on electronic collections than print. We use the Voyager OPAC but it is not being developed. We need the discovery functionality of Summon in addition.
(Type: Academic)
We are looking for a new ILS that caters for eresources workflows more efficiently than Voyager.
(Type: State)
Voyager is not very user friendly for students or staff.
(Type: Academic)
We are in the process of migrating to Alma with Primo. Our go live date is in March. I would suggest I complete this survey again next year at this time so I have time to evaluate the new system.
(Type: Academic)
[...]
(Type: Academic)
For reasons of integration and product support, I would expect the library system's ILS and discovery service layer be from the same vendor. This would allow us to take full advantage of the functionality and maintenance/service.
(Type: Academic)
The cost will be the top priority in the selection of a new system. That is why I responded that we would consider open source.
(Type: Academic)
Cost is the biggest factor in considering a new ILS right now. Our consortium is starting to split up and go different directions which will likely increase our hosting costs. Our collection is small enough and our OPAC gets little enough use that going with a more expensive ILS is hard to justify even though some of the features of newer, more expensive systems would be nice to have.
(Type: Corporate)
[...]
(Type: Academic)
We get our ILS through our library consortium, and we are happy with that arrangement. The consortium is planning to upgrade the ILS in Summer 2015, so we will be involved with that.
Regarding the discovery service, it is not very functional in integrating with our ILS, especially as implemented through the consortium. If users are looking for books specifically, we always direct them to VuFind, rather than Summon.
(Type: Academic)
Our catalog selection will be determined by [...].
(Type: Academic)
Ex Libris' Voyager system is a mature ILS with a solid history of improvements and good vendor and product community support.
(Type: Academic)
Voyager ILS will be phased out next year. Our Consortium decided to go with Alma and Primo from same company. We decided to go with OCLC WMS and OCLC Knowledge Base.
(Type: Academic)
Our collection increase is due to ebook additions. If I count only physical resources our number has actually decreased.
(Type: Academic)
It may not be the ILS but rather University growth and lack of resources that causes our dissatisfaction. We are seriously understaffed and in a building 47 years old. We simply cannot keep up with the growth in student body. We have a significant number of long-term staff and librarians who will be retiring in the next 3-5 years which would make a move to another ILS even more challenging. We realize we will need to move at some point and we have only just started gathering sample RFPs. We have given up on the discovery service and now need to move in the direction of an institutional repository to support a more immediate need by our MFA program.
I am not pleased with ExL's decision (in both Alma and Voyager) to make multiple cataloging changes available only through rules. I just want to be able to select a range of MARC fields in a single record I am working on and delete them without having to click each individual field for selection/deletion. I do not want to have to continually do data clean up or large manipulations of records. Between this and crappy RDA, our metadata is getting worse instead of better.
It is very frustrating the way RDA has been forced on smaller libraries. I have had to stop all Marcive authority loads so it doesn't blow up Voyager's global headings change queue. I really need Voyager to help me out, and it's really not fitting this bill. I have worked with Voyager for 16 years and I will hate to see it go :-(
(Type: Academic)
Overall, we have agreeable relationships with our ILS and Discovery product vendors. Both are working on next-gen web-based systems. We are watching progress in the field, and waiting to see how each develops. We anticipate a possible move in 2-3 years.
(Type: Academic)
[...] has signed to migrate and implement Sierra and EDS. We will go live at the end of 2015. So replying to this questionnaire is academic at this time.
(Type: Academic)
Because we are in the very early phases of implementing a new system, I answered our current system questions based on our old system. Some of the dissatisfaction with our old system stems from our inability to do software upgrades for the last several years due to the age of our current server. We are migrating from ExLibris Voyager to OCLC Worldshare Management System
(Type: Government Agency)
Thank you for doing this, Mr. Breeding. Your website and database are very informative.
(Type: Academic)
Only at initial stages of looking at a replacement system. Alma is way over the top for our needs and too expensive, given our Institute's recent financial problems.
(Type: Academic)
We currently have an ILS review team in place and are conducting a market survey of ILS options. We expect to migrate from our current ILS in 2-3 years.
(Type: Theology)
[...] is in the process of migration to WMS. We should be live in March or April of 2015.
(Type: Academic)
The ILS is becoming less and less significant as we migrate toward electronic resources
(Type: Academic)
Our library would not consider the functionality of the ILS as meeting our needs if we were not able to use third-party add-ons (e.g., Gary Strawn's programs). We are not currently planning to migrate to a new system but are keeping an eye on the market with plans to migrate in three to five years.
(Type: Academic)