This page lists the narrative of comments given by individuals responding to the 2015 library automation perceptions survey. Comments have been redacted to remove content that identifies the indivudual or institution. To place the comments in perspective, the library type, size of collection, and the rating given for overall ILS satisfaction is provided.
There were 1050 narrative comments given regarding 83 different products:
ABCD is open source (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
No tenemos contratado en Absysnet 2.1 el módulo multimedia, por ello ponemos un 3 en la pregunta El acceso a los recursos-e se resuelven con Discovery, plataforma de libros-e y repositorios. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Hay cuestiones que se han dejado sin contestar porque son temas que se llevan desde el [...] Bibliotecas. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
La decisión de implementar SIGB se toma por la dirección de la Red de Bibliotecas de Aragón. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
La biblioteca esta cerrada entoces yo contesto desde una pespectiva que en la actualidad no estamos utilizando mucho (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
El SIGB de nuestra biblioteca esta incorporado al de la Red [...] de Bibliotecas. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The transfer of our servers to vendor's cloud, caused a lot of problems lately (connectivity and performance), but hopefully it will be solved soon. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are part of the [...] system, and therefore, ILS selection, implementation and maintenance was/is managed by [...] . Because we did not have a systems librarian on staff when [...] selected Aleph as its ILS back in the early 2000s, we signed on as a managed service. [...] setup and managed our tables and we had very little control over customizing Aleph. I joined the staff in 2010 and requested many changes to Aleph's original setups for the library, which for the most part have been done, but I only have access to four tables - I can edit due dates, fines & limits; library open/closed hours; patron registration & renewal dates; and patron statuses. All other changes to the tables must be completed by [...] staff via a Footprints service request system. For the most part it has worked well, but I don't have the ability to investigate or implement new functionality without permission from [...] . Most of our use of the ILS is "plain vanilla" - as it was out of the box. I'm hoping our next system will be more user friendly so a staff member can have more privileges and access to customing the system to meet our needs. We don't use Aleph for any e-resource management. Currently I use ERMes for this. It would be nice to have it all in one place. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] is going to take the option to extend our contract with Ex libres until 2020. We have just started the process of planning the migration. No one is thrilled with Ex Libres, but being a very large consortium, our choices are limited. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are implementing Alma/Primo in January 2016 (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are on the lookout for a "next-gen" system that would be able to meet the needs of public libraries as well as university and a national library within a consortium. Ranging from the smallest to the largest libraries within the country. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We will stay with Aleph as long as it is supported and few years after that and after that we will probably by forced to migrate to something else. Rather than getting another commercial system we will then probably migrate to some open source system. Not very likely to migrate to Alma - we do not trust the vendor to not change the system and licensing rules as they see fit (as happened already with Alma API). (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are not satisfied with the discovery layer of this system. As currently configured, the results lists contain too many false hits, and are not sorted well (relevance ranking remains very difficult to do well. ) (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
While the consortium to which our library belongs is investigating Kuale Ole, our individual library has no interest in an open source product. We do not have the staff required to implement, manage, and maintain an open source solution. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are not excited about the VUFind interface to Summon, but we lacked the institutional effort to investigate and find a better, more affordable alternative. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
The number of items does not include our e-resource collection. My main concern is that it is difficult in our library environment (+300 Icelandic libraries are using the same ILS vendor) is to get attention and efforts to meet university library needs as the univ. libraries are only seven. The main concern of the ILS vendor are the public and school libraries. There has not been a discussion among the university libraries directors to use other discovery tools or options. Should they decide on any other solutions, it would probably be done in unison and not on an individual library bases. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are currently running Aleph but we have signed a contract to move to Alma with a go-live of July 2016. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are part of [...] so any decision to migrate to a new ILS will depend on what [...] as a whole decides. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The missing functionality in the ILS to manage e-resources properly with the current separate handling of cataloging, discovery and access to e-resources in a consortial environment becomes more and more an urgent issue. Since we have to provide consortial functionalities to our libraries we see that such features are not really supported to the required Needs by the various vendors. Current open source products are not catering to such needs neither. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We're in our final Aleph service contract period and are seeing the limitations of a 15+ year old system. [...] is currently working towards identifying what we need out of a new management system, and we're working towards an eventual RFP. We hope to have the RFP out this coming summer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
RFI responses for new ILS received. Review in process. Decision in spring; will know more in 2016 about direction this 6-library group will take. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium)
We are still running a legacy system with which we have done a lot of customization. We would consider moving to their new cloud based system but are wary of the loss of access to database and configuration tables that we currently have. We are also very concerned about the loss of functionality moving to a new system. We've noticed a decrease in the number of releases for the legacy product which is a concern as well as a decrease in the legacy system sessions in the user group conference. In spite of this, we are not convinced there is anything out there that is any better. Could be a case of better the devil you know... (Library type: Church; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Shrinking market as a result of mergers and acquisitions will result in less choice and less competition. Such a monopolistic ILS market will have a detrimental impact potentially on library operations. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are an Art and Design Library, therefore we still rely on print material, it constitutes approx. 75% of our collection and seems to still be in demand from a large portion of our students and patrons. Most current ILS concentrate on electric resources, so we are not sure if it would matter what ILS we used. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Product is not user friendly--it takes a considerable amount of time for a new staff member to learn to use this system effectively. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are quite a small library and rely on the [...] office for assistance. I could not implement open source on my own. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Have had current system - Aleph since 2008 and it is starting to show its age. Hoping to tender for next generation system within next 2 years and work involved and value of tender will mean that we will approach all LMS vendors rather than automatically upgrade to Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We have not started "real" consideration of new LMS yet, just keeping an eye on the market (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Also, actively planning to upgrade current version of Aleph to improve services while investigating the next generation ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are part of a consortia. The consortia would not consider open source but we would. Most answers are for our preference and not for the consortia. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 1)
The maintenance fee from vendor is too high. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our setup is not reflected in a good way in the above answers. WE only use Aleph as our vehicle for printed books. Electronic resources and journals in print are handled by other systems, mainly DTU Findit. We are using, and are extremely happy with SFX from Ex Libris as our link resolver. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
I would like to be able to check-out ebooks and see the transaction in the ILS on the patron's records. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Perfectly happy with Alexandria - they have been good to us. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We just moved from our own ILS to Alma and Primo from Ex Libris (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Alma still has room for improvement, however Ex Libris' aggressive monthly update schedule is closing the gap at a good pace. If they keep this up, it's unlikely that another vendor will be able to match Alma any time soon. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have only recently migrated to ExLibris (August 2015) from Capita's Alto and Prism. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We go live in January 2016. While Ex Libris keeps our cohort on a rigorous schedule of weekly phone calls, team meetings, checklists, on-site training session over 3 days, there is much assumed and many gaps that cause the learning curve to be quite steep. All in all, personnel are pleased with the future of this system and changes in workflow. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We were told that the new library services platform would be responsive to our university libraries' peculiar and difficult configuration. This has not been exactly the case. We are often told that we should do things another way and not the way we want to do them. We are also reminded regularly that even the changes the vendor agrees to make cause the vendor inconvenience, and that we should change our procedures to align with the technology. The vendor has actually been responsive and we are, for the most part, happy with our system. But we don't like being told that we're not doing things right, from the vendor's point of view. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Count includes: print volumes; e-journals, and institutional repositories. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Note on number of items - this is items, not titles. Don't think we were able to count e-items previously, hence wild increase. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Automatically getting monthly releases is very easy and nice. It is always exciting to discover each month new functionalities and services with so little additional work required from library staff. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Note - we now are Alma / Primo customer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are happy with Ex Libris as a company. Over the last few years they have done a lot to streamline their customer support. Their product development is agile with new functionality released regularly. They're progressive, constantly anticipating future trends in library services. Ex Libris seems to put a lot of resources into R&D - hopefully that will continue under the new Proquest management. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
customer support was better as we only very recently went back to normal support after implementation, implementation support is very responsive (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Now that we are out of implementation, we receive slower and less useful support particularly in terms of needed new system development. ExL has several different paths of allowing customers to request new functionality, and they appear to make decisions not holistically but in terms of what's easiest for them to code (without testing the impact of the change system-wide), with a layer of "what's most popular". They have a (mostly) great team of support folks, but it is clear that they are overworked and not in the loop about new developments. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
Alma is very advanced and is, for the most part, easy to navigate after set up. The discovery interface, Primo, with Alma leaves MUCH to be desired. Ex Libris cannot even explain with any detail how Primo ranks the results. Our subject librarians do not use it and do not train to it. They go directly to the databases. Very disappointing. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Alma implementation was a nightmare. Some of it was our fault, but Ex Libris' dealing with us has been very unimpressive, and Salesforce has been, as one employee said: Salesforce has been useless (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
There have been some significant Alma improvements in 2016. Monthly releases are challenging for customers, but new product features included: improvements to automated bibliographic record loading; better integration of Alma with external resource sharing systems, such as ILLiad; and, full migration of Alma APIs to REST.
Support appears to be badly understaffed, both the first-line and more specialized support staff. *This seems to have worsened as Alma’s traction in the library market has increased.* Ex Libris cites Support KPIs in arguing that Support is properly staffed, but ExL leadership's understanding doesn’t match the on-the-ground customer experience.
Development is based at the company's Israel headquarters and its visibility to North American customers is very limited. Likewise, Ex Libris has been opaque in its asserted efforts to improve Alma usability for staff. The Ex Libris user groups appear uninformed about this work, which will supposedly be reflected in production Alma in 2016.
To see Ex Libris dedicate major resources to its campusM mobile solution while there are so many basic problems with its emerging management services product, Alma, is disconcerting. There are few real synergies between campusM (institution-level) and the library solutions sold by Ex Libris.
Both the company and Alma have significant momentum in the marketplace. The impact of the expected merger with ProQuest is unclear. I hope that the merger results in Ex Libris becoming a more open company.
(Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Alma is still a very young product, but is continually improving with rapid monthly releases. (Library type: State; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Overall, the customer support received from ExLibris has improved this year over last and most issues have been resolved in a timely manner. The fact that they keep improving on customer support is a real benefit. As we are not in the market to migrate to a new ILS, we are uninterested in exploring Open Source options at this time, but might be interested if the landscape were more mature in that arena. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
The [...] launched Alma on the 21st of November 2015. Therefore, the evaluation is primarely based on first impressions of the system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We do not have adequate IT support to consider an open source system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We switched to ALMA this year. It is never connected, goes offline constantly, does not provide reports, is difficult to use, is not flexible, and seems to have been rolled out years before it should have been. Many features were lost in the change from Aleph to Alma, and library no longer has control over functions. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 1)
We only went live with Alma in July, so haven't really had enough time to form a fair estimate of the company's product support since implementation. So far the support level feels about the same as with our previous LMS - Capita Alto. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The product is new, complex and constantly evolving (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The Library has only been using its current ILS for 13 months so relatively speaking it is still early days, however the system does not meet a good number of our requirements, and performance is unreliable. System upgrades frequently result in loss of function, and it can be time consuming to have these restored. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Clearly, with the transfer of ownership to ProQuest, the future remains to be seen. Early indications are positive, but actual experiences will matter more. Overall, we remain very pleased with the product and company and our issues will likely be addressed as the product matures. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Ex Libris is the only company with vision and understanding of the full range of needs of academic libraries. Alma is realizing its potential, especially for the management of e-resources and Primo is improving as the discovery interface for Alma. The other systems out there are poor seconds to Alma/Primo - really just rewrites of older systems. We no longer really care about print management as much but concentrate on the e-resource functionality for our patrons. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Alma and Primo integrate reasonably well. However, the back office interface of Primo and the logic behind the relationship b/n Alma and Primo is not always clear. Ex Libris could do a much better job, not only with the Primo front end interface, but with the ability for library staff to make changes to Primo in a more intuitive manner. We are also hoping for positive results from the acquisition of ExLibris by ProQuest. In particular, we hope this will improve the knowledge base inherent in the Alma Community Zone and Primo Central. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We migrated to Alma/Primo from Voyager/Primo in early June 2015. On the whole, we are very pleased with the systems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have been live with Alma since July 2013, and is now very much business as usual. We are now shifting focus to look at - UX testing of our discovery interface (Primo) - improving the efficiency of Library processes through LEAN and more automated integrations - make better use of data; data driven decisions in Collections Development - making use of mobile tech; e.g. checking out a book via your Smartphone Ex Libris have generally been supportive and offered involvement in all of the above, which is beneficial. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
The University of [...] consortium went live with Alma in May of 2015 and used that opportunity to create a centralized bibliographic repository within Alma network zone. Hence the total number of items listed above increased from 7.8 million (roughly the size of [...] ) to 13 million system wide (this is before any deduplication. We view Alma as an immature product with great potential. Basic functionality is fairly solid though resource sharing of materials across the consortium is labor intensive and wrought with problems. Analytics and the ability to generate custom reports or otherwise assess data is very poorly developed at this time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
Account managers never stay long enough to achieve anything; new support staff are short on knowledge. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We didn't have this ILS 12 months ago so we could not answer the question on whether it was better or worse. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Likely to migrate 2018 so actively horizon-scanning now; we are looking ideally for a next generation LSP like system that fully integrates management of print and electronic resources and includes a discovery layer. From a UK perspective one product clearly leads the field but we would hope that the next 12 months or so will see viable alternatives emerge. Our current LMS provider is working hard on developing their product but we feel that they are playing catchup and have some way to go. We are concerned by the seemingly relentless trend of merger and consolidation within the Library Tech industry and worry about the resultant restriction of choice within the market. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Capita is expensive for the service offered and the product is not user friendly enough to run without lots of support. Areas such as setting up rules are old-fashioned and cumbersome and the company charges extra for its web client interface, although this is still under development. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Unable to comment because of confidential Tender process underway. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
We've recently decided that OCLC's motto should be "It'll be fixed in the next upgrade" and we have ordered T-shirts to distribute to all OCLC customers. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We have been made aware the product is no longer being developed, therefore a change of LMS is essential in the next few years (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
50k items across the 5 libraries in the Shire. As part of the [...] Consortium we will be implementing a new LMS in 2016 (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
AMLIB very dated and requires old versions of Windows to operate. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)
Looks like a number of public libraries are moving to Spydus in Western Australia - already Perth, Armadale and Rockingham in the past year. At the moment the most fully featured LMS for our needs. OCLC WMS still has many shortcomings as a product that is in the process of being built, having seen it in action at Cambridge Library. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
SirsiDynix has a great online catalogue and interface for the public. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
We're right on the cusp of moving from Amlib (OCLC) to Spydus10 (Civica) so I've based my answers on what we're using right now, today, as we do not have sufficient operating experience with Spydus10 to respond accurately. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)
Have heard mostly bad feedback regarding WorldShare from libraries. LIBERO is the only solution which is available 100% cloud based which is a big positive. Spydus have a big customer base in WA but are not yet entirely cloud based. [...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are a very small public library and AMLIB services our need well. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small)
We have been using AMLIB since 1995; Infovision was sold to OCLC , so company interaction in this period has been confined to requests for upgrades etc. Mostly OK, definitely very professional. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
Biblionix continues to exceed the already high expectations they've set. They are extraordinarily response to requests for help and ideas for enhancements. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are not using everything that Apollo has available for us. We also think their customer service is just outstanding. We can suggest improvements to the way we want things to work and they will work at providing that for us. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Biblionix is receptive to recommendations, has amazing customer service and offers great assistance on the rare occasion that it is necessary. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We were previously using Koha as our ILS but found it too cumbersome for our small library. We have since migrated to Apollo by Biblionix and couldn't be happier! Apollo does everything we need it to do without being overwhelming or time consuming. It is very intuitive and very easy to learn. The support is also amazing! Very quick to respond and the people who work there are easy to deal with and super friendly! Both our staff and patrons love Apollo! We would highly recommend Apollo to anyone looking for a new ILS! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are absolutely thrilled with Apollo! Migrated over in September of this year. Easy migration, great experience! This is saving our staff a huge amount of time by automatically sending emails for overdues and reserves. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Biblionix is constantly working to add features to an already good product. For example the newest feature is the ability of the system to send automatic texts for renewals and reserves. Also we are able to use the system for patrons to text us questions. Also I appreciate the ease that the system handles the Texas ILL system.I would never switch vendors. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The customer service from Biblionix is outstanding - the best we have ever received in the 30+ years I've been at the library! The product is superb and continually evolves to be even better. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Open source, especially Linux based not an option. We use as many cloud-hosted services as possible, as we don't have any on site tech support. An open source cloud-hosted option would always be considered. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Very pleased with how simple and efficient Apollo works. Would highly recommend it. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Since migrating to Apollo in May 2010, we are still very happy with Apollo by Biblionix! It is affordable and suits our needs as a small library. We also are pleased with the customer service and continual free, all inclusive, ILS updates. We highly recommend Biblionix to other small/medium-sized libraries looking for a budget-friendly ILS that boasts top-tier web hosting and ease of use. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Received a 5 on customer support better or worse because customer service has always been outstanding and it did not get worse and I cannot think of how it could get better. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have been loyal Biblionix customers for seven years. their customer service is exceptional, and they have a great track record for implementing customer suggestions. We are in the process of forming a user group for them. their acquisitions module is the only piece that keeps them for serving all our needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
I'm a new staff person at [...] and have worked with a variety of different ILS systems in the past. The staff are very happy with Apollo. Having used other systems, I know there are a larger variety of options that could be available. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We absolutely love Biblionix! I have worked here at the library now for 12 years! we have been through at least 3 ILS systems and Biblionix has been by far the BEST and easiest to work with! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We continue to be impressed with Biblionix's responsiveness to ours and other customers' needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Apollo is an outstanding product and the customer service provided by Biblionix is equally wonderful. We are only migrating to SirsiDynix because we received a grant that will allow us to join the the [...], which will connect us to the larger public and academic libraries in the state, giving our patrons ready access to millions of titles. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have used Apollo by Biblionix for seven years now. Clark Charbonnet and his son have done an excellent job of keeping up with new innovations, and I must say they install updates well ahead of other automation systems. We are very pleased and have recommended their company to other libraries as well. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Apollo is great. I see little reason to mess with what works so very well. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are very satisfied with Apollo. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are very happy with the Apollo system from Biblionix. Their customer service is excellent. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We've had exceptional service from the Apollo Biblionix team and are absolutely enjoying their seamless product! They make our job so very easy. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We began using Apollo in 2008. From the beginning, Clark and his staff have always been helpful and responsive regarding any questions or concerns we might have. They are continually providing new and/or update services. We particularly appreciate the fact that the database is stored off site. Thanks - (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
There are things I would change about Apollo (i.e. generating lists to pull for displays, etc.) and I think that the interface is very clunky and needs an upgrade-it looks old and dated and it just needs to be cleaner. I love the customer service and they are responsive to librarians, they really listen to them. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The experience with Apollo has been absolutely amazing. Working with their tech team during the migration process, was a dream. Any questions that I've had have been promptly answered. Handling overdues is quick and extremely efficient with the different stages and the ability to electronically cross off items on the list while checking shelves. They've rolled out new features -- one of which makes our interlibrary loan experience go much more smoothly. The ability to search our holdings for Accelerated Reader items, by point level, has been praised by not only our library staff, but patrons, too. We're extremely satisfied with Apollo and will continue to sing their praises. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We just migrated to Apollo at the end of the year and are very pleased with the company and feel that the system is more efficient. We love the single sign in interface through the catalog (as do our patrons). We will soon have all neighboring libraries also on this system so that our patrons can search the nearest 5 libraries instead of just our library. I'm finding the report functions harder to use. This may be because I'm unused to them but they seem to always need an extra step compared to our former system (Atrium). (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Apollo automated system was implemented in 2015 - library was closed in 2014 and previously used TLC system. Apollo is a perfect fit and is extremely user friendly. Patron and staff are completely satisfied with the ease and use of this system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Very user friendly and adaptive to our needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Regarding the questions about whether the the customer support has gotten better or worse for this ILS company, my answer is to reflect that it hasn't changed. Biblionix already gives excellent customer service and has since the system was acquired. So, there hasn't been any improvement because it has always been the best. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have been pleased with Biblionix and their APOLLO software since we first began dealing with them. They are truly interested ONLY in small and medium-sized public libraries. Their troubleshooting is in-depth and very thorough. They are responsive to customer comments and requests. (Sometimes making changes immediately!) The software, itself, allows us to do exactly what we need it to do (and some things we love, but didn't know we needed!) (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Biblionix responds promptly to any questions or requests for changes to the ILS that we make. There are some improvements that we'd like to see to make it easier for our volunteer staff. Clark Charbonnet and his staff are always willing to consider and act on our suggestions and requests. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Te only thing I do not care for is the new Book catalog system. It is hard for our patrons to follow. I am always having to help them find a book because the new system doesn't explain it self well. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
While Biblionix Apollo is not pretty, it is functional for its purpose, which is to serve small and medium-sized public libraries. The support team is responsive, and updates happen regularly throughout the year. There are some functions that are not as easy to use as our previous ILS, which was InfoCentre. Creating bibliographies is not as easy as InfoCentre was for example. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
no comment (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
Most often, when issues are brought to our vendor;s technical support, I end up resolving them (or not) myself. The system sometimes drops books from the catalog, when we know they have been entered into the system and checked out multiple times. This makes it difficult for us to trust any reports it produces. The report that we would really like to have, which would be the total number of individual patrons who checked books in or out in a given period, is not available, though we have requested it. The OPAC, however, has been quite satisfactory and we use it to inform patrons of library activities. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Hi. I recently became the Director of the [...] . Atriuum helped us tremendously with different reports that were needed. I've been here for 20 years so library business is not new to me. Atriuum has met our needs and has a very helpful staff. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I love BookSystems. Their customer service is great, and they continually put out updates in response to librarians' input to make their product even better. At some point in future I would like to acquire a discovery interface, but lack of funding in public schools makes that prohibitive right now. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
While we're quite happy with Atriuum, it is confusing to set up some of the reports, and there are quite a few functions that we, as a small library, don't need. However, I'm very pleased with how easy it is to learn for new employees-- they catch on quickly and I am able to customize the features each employee has access to -- very helpful as we're generally a 1-person library, so there is only one of us here at a time, and employee computer skills vary! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
They have improved in rolling out new versions with enough data on changes. The only module I would not recommend is the Surfit module for Federated searches; has never worked well. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
we are very satisfied with our vendor (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The few times I've had to contact them, they helped me right away. I didn't have to wait at all. i am very pleased, but we are not changing our system for a long long time. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Rarely do we have a problem, but it would be nice when we do if out telephone call could go directly to the tech department rather than a receptionist. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are overall happy with our vendor. Sometime there is difficulty making them understand the problem we are having. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We might feel differently about Atriuum if we had all paid, professional operators. Unfortunately, we rely on normal volunteers who find it not user friendly. In our use of Concourse, we dealt with a minimum of mistakes by volunteers. With Atriuum, we deal with mistakes on a regular basis such that we have had to accept that our circulation records cannot be depended on as being accurate. Because we operate in a church setting, we have to rely on "grace" of our members to forgive our mistakes. While using Concourse, we did not need to depend on so much grace. With paid, professional operators, possibly Atriuum works better. On a positive note, the web-based nature of this program does offer several advantages that we find useful. (Library type: Church; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
I am not a very "tech" person, but every time I have called Atriuum, they have very patiently helped me and answered every one of my questions, as well as solved the issue. I am very satisfied. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are very happy with our ILS vendor. They are easy to contact and timely in all responses. They are a bargain in the ILS world, providing excellent service with a great product. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We seriously considered open source before deciding upon the Atriuum system. As a very small library, our technical support comes as a rider on the County Commission's maintenance contract. After honest discussion with the techs who help us set things up and fix what we break, it was decided (mutually) that open source and the associated learning curve would not be a good match for us. We went with Atriuum because the system grows with us and once we resolve our internet connectivity issues (satellite), we can expand our service in a rural area where getting to the library in the winter can be an issue. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
I have been on the job for one week so my comments are based on what what shared with me during orientation and my experiences as a student volunteer 2-3 years ago. (Library type: Church; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
love the system (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Very happy with Atriuum. They continue to research and explore ways of making the system more user friendly and accessible. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Would love it if Atriuum navigated easier when marking lost items and then paying fines immediately after doing so. Also wish running reports had fewer steps. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Wish it was easier to mark lost items to a patron account and then immediately pay the fine or waive it without having to go back into the patron account twice. Also have had issues once in a while with report wizard not locating all items check out within a class. (showed on patrons with items even though there were things in their accounts) (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are very happy with Atriuum, Tech support is excellent and any questions or problems are handled quickly. I have been able to make suggestions, some of which are implemented in the next update. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Book Systems has been a great company to work for. Their employees are a joy to work with. When we have had trouble and need to call support, it has NOT been painful in anyway. The support services are awesome, always willing to help and not farm out to an overseas customer service bank that is hard to understand. We really enjoy Book Systems (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We love Atriuum! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Atriuum fits our community needs at this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Easy to use and updates are seamless giving more and never reducing features. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Book Systems has been very responsive with their service and upgrades addressing issues we have brought to their attention. Before we found them we advocated for Open Source, but now are spoiled by this great product. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Atrium does what we need it to do and is easy to use. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Any questions, comments or concerns are responded to in a very timely manner and everyone has been great to work with. We love the system and its ease of use. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
As you can see are very happy with Atriuum. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I don't know what Discovery Interface is or Open Source Ils is. I looked it up on google and it looks the same as what I have so I don't understand the difference. I can't afford a public library software that would be in the 10's of thousand so we have to go with the cheep ones. That are really for schools not public libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The pricing is an important factor in our decision to stay with Atriuum.Sometimes we have had some slowness issues. We are also happy that they are responsive to feature requests. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
All questions and concerns were given immediate attention and we could not have been treated better. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Don't know what an open source ILS is. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Robust reporting but would like more training. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I was asked to Beta test the latest version of Atriuum. Unfortunately I did not find many upgrades that benefited out library. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Overall we are pleased with atrium. I am sure there are things that we need to be addressed but that will be in the future. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We switched to Atriuum two years ago and are extremely pleased with operation and customer support ! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Kirjastoin toiminta päättyy 2015. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Kirjasto on lakkautettu. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small)
Kirjasto lakkautetaan keväällä 2016. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Kirjasto on suljettuna remontin vuoksi 2015-2016. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small)
Very good product shell but is missing refinement. It is a great product but we find that the fine tuning is missing. The circulation parts of the programs have many bugs but the management parts work very well. The answers are : but we put a lot of time on the numeric book applications. Yes but we do not have that application. We feel not important enough for them to fix what does not work properly. It is very aggravating. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
This question is not made up correct in your survey: Has the customer support for this ILS gotten better or gotten worse in the last year? 0=Worse 9=Better There is no need for more than two options, better or worse. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are currently migrating from CARL.X to Polaris. Launch date is March 9. Decision based on their product development, user interface & overall direction of the company. TLC, while developing actively, does not have strong base in the [...], another aspect of our interest in migrating to a new platform. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
TLC was not responsive in sharing CARL-X full capabilities since 2009 to 2015. It wasn't until our consortium decided to consider another ILS that TLC began promising to do more. Nevertheless,we chose to go with Polaris beginning in June, 2016. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
We have already selected CARL X by TLC as our next ILS, with the expected go-live date in late [...]. I answered the above questions based on the fact that our current ILS is SIRSI, not CARL X. (Library type: ; collection size: medium)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: small)
We are satisfied with the product, however the vendor was bought by another company so we no longer have support from the company. When we next upgrade we will have to find an entirely new vendor and product. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I am a new staff and we have lost past staff in death this year. I contacted customer support, with Follett, with questions and was basically told to use the tutorials. So I am learning by trial and error which can be a bit frustrating. I would like to see trainings or at least some books to assist new users. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our system is out of date and does not work very well for us. We are looking into a new system in the near future (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)
We would consider an open source or alternative model of ILS if there were effective guides for set up and configuration guides for all library employees, even the less tech-savvy operators. When we contacted a vendor who configures open source ILS for libraries, their prices were about 3-4 times as high as the proprietary systems. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
looking at alot of various options - not sure what direction to go as of yet but hoping to lock that down by march of 2016 - cost is the major factor (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
There is concern that a single individual maintains and further develops the NuGen circulation and cataloging modules. There is no backup programming staff. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Biblioteca Pública Municipal [...] pertenece a la red de bibliotecas nacionales. Es administrada por el municipio de [...] El acervo y el equipo digital es proporcionado por Conaculta. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I have been the Director less than a year, so still working on a better understanding of systerm. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
New director since March. Still uncovering massive problems in this library and ILS (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)
This is a cooperative OPAC, not an ILS (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large)
CyberTools for Libraries continues to be an excellent vendor for our ILS needs. Its customer support is first rate and, in my opinion, would be hard to beat. [...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I have been satisfied with Cybertools for the money we spent. We have provided management the option of going with Sirsi implementation at a cost 25K for SIRSI through [...]. That cost was rejected. I will be leaving in March and hope they will move forward with SIRSI and EBSCO Discovery through [...]. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)
ILS backend: DB/TextWorks on a local server. ILS frontend: Presto Cloud for DB/TextWorks on a cloud server via InMagic USA Data transfer via Syncrify software at specified intervals. We are a demo site for Presto for DB/TextWorks The search interface is publicly accessible here: http://prestohost32.inmagic.com/Presto/home/home.aspx The taxonomy feature within Presto has allowed us (for the first time) to provide online browsing (drilldowns) of the full holdings (whether print or electronic) by multiple paths (one or more subjects, region etc), without the user having to type a single search term. In 2015 we received some (unsolicited) suggestions and support from the US vendor (InMagic USA) to further enhance our Presto interface. This was over and above our regular maintenance support via local vendor Maxus Australia. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our vendor has essentially lost their market share in Denmark, due to the new, national library system (Cicero, formerly Fælles Bibliotekssystem). We believe that we can tell that they've begun to regard us as exit customers. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Most danish public libraries are migrating to Cicero in 2015-2017. Vendor is Systematic. DDB CMS is the most common OPAC/web system in Denmark, integrating website and database. DDB = Danskernes Digitale Bibliotek (Danish Digital Library) Most danish libraries use Bibliotheca equipment and software for RFID handling of items. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Changing from DDELibra to Cicero in 2016 due to the result of a national public procurement. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We quit using ProQuest's Summon Discovery because our IT department does not support Proxy Servers and we could not get their 360 Link Resolver to work without one. We can not afford an ILS system bigger than those at the level of Follett's Destiny Program. As much as we would like to upgrade to a Sirsi Dynix type system more appropriate for a small academic institution we can not afford one at this time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We use Destiny from Follett. This product has far more features than we are able to implement due to lack of staff and time to implement. We are very happy with Destiny. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I HATE open source ILS. It doesn't work for me. We had it as part of a consortium and I left the consortium because of the open source ILS. As a school library with only one library and a staff of 1 - using an open source program without support was terrible. I was so frustrated. I tried to get help from the public library, but they "didn't have time". They wanted my money to help pay for Evergreen, but wouldn't help me when I needed it. It also wasn't really kid-friendly. Being a school, I needed a ILS that students could navigate a little easier. I've been happy with Follett. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
This is a county wide school library consortium with 35 individual partners. the above number does bot include digital materials (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
It would be much easier to use the Destiny system if it were geared more toward a public library setting, as opposed to a school scenario. It is difficult to impossible to get all the info for our Annual Report by using the report generator with this system. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are unhappy with Follett's proprietary nature, which makes it impossible for us to take advantage of, for instance, Ebsco Novelist K-8's ability to be embedded in the online catalog. We are dissatisfied with the lack of local control over the public display of catalog information in Destiny, and the fact that Follett's priorities do not align with our library's priorities. Follett have been responsive insofar as we have had email communication with them about our needs, but so far no actual results have been seen. We are dissatisfied with the level of cataloging expertise shown by Follett customer service: questions about cataloging almost never receive usable responses. Re Bywater: we have been extremely impressed by their responsiveness, especially its timeliness, and we are in discussion with them re migrating to Koha. We will go ahead if the customization possibilities for the Koha interface align with the needs of our library and our students. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
Some aspects of Destiny reporting is more geared towards public libraries and not towards school libraries. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
When we upgrated to Destiny, we had more issues and in a lot of areas, it was more difficult to operate with more frequent errors. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)
We have submitted suggestions to Follett for improvements and new features in Destiny, but there is never any follow up to acknowledge submissions. For the most part Destiny meets our needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We have just installed Destiny in the last three months so unable to make comprehensive assessment of the system! (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
There are still glitches in the system that do not seem to get resolved. It is horrible at finding specific items in the general catalogue tab. Support does not always know what they need to know. At one time my technician was more knowledgeable than the support staff we were trying to work with. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our library is looking into a better fit for a public library as compared with Follett which seems to be geared more toward school libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
The Destiny Library Manager System is a workable solution for school libraries but other library types should consider other vendors/products. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Good basic system. Serves our current needs. No on campus tech infrastructure for Open Source system or support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
When our school first moved to automation we used winnebago. We then went with the open-source program Evergreen. Being a library with a staff of one person, using Evergreen was extremely difficult. There was no support and the software difficult to manage. Uploading marc records, searching, everything about it was frustrating for me and the students of our school. Saving money and time was a big incentive to move our circulation to Follett Destiny. Overall, I am happy with the migration. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have been generally pleased with the union version of Destiny Library and Textbook Manager. The two most significant detractions to implementation is the a) software costs, both initial and annual service fee and b) lack of user friendly training opportunities for both counter staff and student patrons (built-in discovery interface). ILS-specific user forums would be great, especially if they can be regionalized/localized. The promotion of normalizing student access to the ILS from home and the class room would promote greater book checkout. This is should in concert with promoting other information databases to be accessed from home, such as subscription based data access; Discovery Education, SIRS, etc. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I love Follett; lots of options already built-in, fairly good response when they get suggestions (2/year updates). We're hosted by them, so we get the updates right away (compared to being two versions back when we were hosted by the district). Great community of users as well, who help each other with issues. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I am happy with Follett Destiny. The only thing I wish I could do is print a report for labels that would allow me to print a batch of barcodes (not sequential) on a page of labels at one time. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
WE switched from Koha supported by ByWaters Solutions for Follett Destiny because we had a switch in people running out department. There were new people in the department that had worked with Destiny in the past that said they were unable to have Koha do what they were used to Destiny being able to do. We also had our in-house open source person leave the district and there was no one else that could do the things he could do. Follett made the District an offer they couldn't refuse. We'll be paying for it in the future but it was easy for them to do at the time. I have not been impressed with Folletts customer support as we are still having barcodes read incorrectly or not at all. The other librarians are happy with Follett and the district is looking at adding asset manager to our contract to help manage the ipads we have. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
I run a consortium. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
I have used this software before Follett bought it and have used it since 1983 and went through Apple IIE, DOS, 3.1 to the online version now. Have always had good tech support from them. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I am the new librarian and trying to work things out on my own. Perhaps I should contact you with the relatively few questions I do have. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Product is satisfactory. Price appropriate for our budget. Some staff have objections about the functionality. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
Current implementation covers library, textbooks, and assets. Each are provided as separate modules and the features (access, programming, customization, etc.) varies from module to module. This creates a learning curve when moving from one module to the next. For example, adding a field in one module is not possible in another. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our current version of Destiny is about 5 years old, so we are considering updating to a newer version. It is possible a newer version will offer the options we are now requiring for better usability and information gathering. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Customer Service has been unable to give me correct information when I have inquired about issues in the system. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
At this time we have frustrations with Destiny because it is limited in the "custom reports" that can be created. There are many limitations in the "Reports" section. Truly "custom reports" would allow key filters or search terms to be chosen by the user. We are in a large school system that rarely changes software. I do not foresee our district changing to a discovery interface or an open source ILS. We have twenty sites with an approximate total collection of 400,000 items. Both of these options would be very helpful. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The survey is listed for the district...we have 34 schools. I really only can answer for my school (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are very pleased with our vendor -Follett as they provide excellent support and have kept up with changing technology adding apps etc. The open source systems we have seen look quite outdated, and have little interest in going back in time. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have chosen to manage our print materials through Destiny and our ebooks through MackinVIA. Destiny is still our main catalog, but it would be interesting to see how many school libraries (or public libraries) are using multiple systems to manage multiple media types. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our library books are through San[...] which uses polaris (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
.eLM by CGI declared they are no longer interested in hosting an LMS early this year, therefore all questions above were considered irrelevant other than we are migrating asap (Library type: Public; collection size: small)
EOS products have consistantly performed as requried. Their customer support is exemplary. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
No other comments. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are satisfied with the cataloging module in our ILS but the circulation module needs significant work to make it complete. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Biblioteca especializada en Ciencias de la Salud. Recursos fundamentales: revistas y libros electrónicos y bases de datos y recursos point of care. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
EOS fits our needs at this time. Some of the features are a bit klunky, overall we are satisfied. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: very small)
We have been with EOSI for over 30 years. Our collection is very small so we cannot justify the cost of the larger sytems to manage the collection. Our patrons are very article based and use the catalog infrequently only to search for book content. Now that we are 99% electronic only, the catalog is used mostly by the library staff to manage what we subscribe to and keep track of what we purchase. Not sure if that is good or bad. I have even considered doing away with an ILS entirely because almost all our content is accessible through a url and patrons can and prefer to access it more easily searching google or pubmed. Sigh. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
They're all the same, basically. Some are a little at one thing, but worse at another. I haven't seen one ILS that's a magic ticket to solve all our problems, or push us to a higher level. (Library type: Law; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
The EOS company products and services continue their transition since being acquired by SirsiDynix. The concerns that surfaced during the initial period of merger have been addressed or are in process of being addressed. They have worked hard to maintain good working relationships with customers. They are on a good path of improvements to functionality and interface re-design that is hoped will be more evident in the next year or two. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
It provides the basic functionality required but the interface feels clunky (e.g. you have to click on a "paper clip" to select a record and not a double click on the name--like everything else on the web). The reports we required were far from intuitive and difficult to navigate the required path. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
[...] (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We like Evergreen very much. However, it's acquisitions module could use some streamlining and the reports module is very clunky. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our library consortium, [...], maintains its own instance of Evergreen and has two support staff for it. It is astronomically better than my previous commercial vendor experiences, which mostly have been with III. We particularly appreciate the ability to be able to fund our own custom work on the system and have it implemented quickly. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] is a public consortium providing access to automation and interlibrary loan services to libraries in Missouri. They've been very helpful through the automation process and continuing maintenance and improvements to the system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We largely use community support for our Evergreen ILS. However, if a special need arises we can contract out with Equinox for services and have been very happy with them. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Reports section should be made to be very user friendly. Keep it simple! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We love Evergreen. Giving our patrons easy access to the collections of 107 libraries is awesome! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Very please with the system and service we receive. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are a growing consortium. It seems as through there is not sufficient concern given to keeping records clean when new members are merged. This is a hosted solution for us, and there is more downtime than seems reasonable, and an apparent lack of urgency to resolve the underlying causes of the problems. The designers apparently aren't clear that managing fines and fees is an important part of what libraries need to do. Our accountants and auditors have fits over the lack of control over assets and limited reporting capabilities. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Open source software requires a high level of in-house tech support - any up-front cost savings is more than offset by personnel costs. In retrospect, this was a poor choice for a small library like ours. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
Our program IS an open source program. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Support services for upgrades and patches were lacking. Refusal to guarantee transfer of customizations and configurations (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
[...] is part of the [...] consortium so all our support and product upgrades are provided through the [...] staff at Georgia Public Library Service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are very please with SPARK- administered by PaILS and hosted by Equinox (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Since we are part of a consortium, we don't handle Evergreen coding directly. I love that it's customizable to what we need and there are multiple module that can be added and adjusted as necessary. Although some of the backend is overly simplistic and the front can occasionally be confusing for patrons, the BC Libraries Cooperative works hard to ensure our ILS is constantly improving. Overall, Evergreen suits our needs very well and we won't be changing any time soon. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have had issues with the accuracy and completeness of the OPAC in Evergreen. Often title searches do not bring back titles we know we own, and even when it does, they are often on the second or third page of results, when less popular items that mostly meet the search terms are displayed first. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
The current open source ILS in use is not robust enough to handle the very large and varied collection of items in our collection. Specialized handling is very slow to implement, if implemented at all. Basic services are fine and work as expected and the patron interface see ver5y few issues. The staff side workflow and cataloging functionality see the great limitations of this ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 1)
I have been very pleased with the 24/7 reliability of the Evergreen software as hosted/supported by Equinox. Our software is regularly updated to the latest version with very little impact to services. The system is easy to learn and easy to use. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We use Evergreen Indiana which is an open source ILS supported by the [...]. Most of the system works well, but the Reports Module is the least user friendly module that I have ever seen of the different systems that I have worked with or seen demonstrated in my recent memory. It is hard to create a report from scratch, it is not easy to find other reports that are useful. However, it can produce extremely detailed information. My only other major complaint is that it doesn't handle being on limited bandwidth well at all so our bookmobile frequently has problems with it. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
This system is considerably more complicated than our old system (Spectrum) I wish it would be more user simple (for me) than it is. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We continue to be impressed with the personal service we get through Equinox. It's a world of difference compared to dealing with previous library vendors. We've been a customer of theirs for many years now, and even though we're a small organization we still get a high level of service -- something which was not the case with other ILS vendors. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our experience and satisfaction with Evergreen improves each year. We are actively involved in development for new features with the Evergreen community. Our support vendor, Equinox is very responsive and great to work with. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We participate in a consortium with 4 public libraries, sharing Evergreen -- the server is housed and supported at the College. An IT Working group composed of reps from all 5 institutions meet monthly to consider any upgrades, changes, development required. We are now 5 years into operation and are going to consider our strategy this year for the upcoming 3-5 years. At this point, no one has indicated an interest in getting out of Evergreen or out of the consortium, largely because maintenance costs are so low. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are already using Evergreen which is an open source ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Equinox Software, Inc. did not exceed our expectations. We have staff that have programming backgrounds and the representative 'talked down' to us and I felt it was unproductive and disrespectful of our skills and understanding of how to implement a conversion and to create an attractive OPAC design. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are a very small community this part of a consortium. We are not currently looking to go out on our own at any time (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Evergreen is already Open-source (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
It’s a system that doesn’t match our mission, quality assurance is lacking, usability is poor, it’s not cost-effective, it has taken all of the oxygen out of the room since May 31, 2011, causes embarrassing public relations, and long term sustainability is in question. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
We find the Evergreen catalog to be a problem in bringing consistent answers to the exact same search across different computers, or it brings up no title when we KNOW the title is in the collection. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our experience tells us that the Evergreen Open Source ILS does not adequately support our mission. We have ample evidence that a commercial ILS is not significantly more expensive than an open source ILS. We have evidence that we cannot (reasonably) do “anything we want” to with an Open Source ILS. We are now looking at the commercial ILS market and determine the best partner to support our mission and walk with us into the future. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)
Open source is difficult but also very collegial. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I have left questions unanswered because we implemented Evergreen on our own and do not have a support company. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have used Evergreen for a number of years now and have added the Discovery layer about two years ago. Removing the fixed cost for a proprietary system has allowed our library to focus on and fund new services that have really changed our community usage. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Answers for 'vendor' are based on the Evergreen community, as we are self supported. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are already using an open source ILS administered through a consortium. The challenge is coming to consensus on which features to invest money and time into for new functionality. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We've been on Evergreen for about 5 years, but it is just so far behind the traditional vendor products, feature-wise, that it's hard to continue to rally support among the directors in the consortium that open source is worth it. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
At the present time were are using evergreen. Very few new materials as we are not an operational library. We have a blind and physically handicapped library that is operational and we are using KLAS. We are very happy with this product and it works well. (Library type: State; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
currently using Evergreen open source ILS (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Note: Approximate number of items in the library's collection consists of print and electronic items loaded in the ILS. Print only is approximately 50,000 items. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
New customer portal has been launched and sharing of tips and tasks to improve content and service. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Level of support depends on who answers the call very often, some are very good, but one can be very poor indeed which adversely affects our perception of the company. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are currently using the SirsiDynix BLUEcloud Cataloging interface to catalog new additions to the book collection. We are monitoring the BLUEcloud OPAC and will consider using it as our discovery interface when all the required features are available. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We just renewed a 5 year contract with SD. Hoping the blue cloud suite lives up to expectations and needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are currently satisfied with our ILS. Any change in systems will likely be required for budgetary reasons and not due to dissatisfaction with the software. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
SirsiDynix Enterprise is improving but still has some problems. Many patrons opt to use our old catalog instead. SirsiDynix support services has vastly improved in the last couple of years. Five years ago we were considering possibly migrating to a different ILS. We are very, very pleased with their support, sales, and training departments now. They reach out to libraries with free training, which we really appreciate. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
SirsiDynix have fewer support staff now that really understand Horizon and its Catalogue (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
Already implemented and in production with Intota Assessment and Foundation. Currently planning to complete the migration from Horizon by going live with Intota Fulfilment in 2016. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
Our ILS is outdated and the contract is up for renewal, so we've decided to go with Blue Cloud. In addition to its improved interface/performance, the aspect of a vendor "hosted" ILS fits our needs especially well. Our library does have the personnel or expertise to maintain its own ILS system/server. Our campus IT department houses the server and keeps it going, but does not have the information necessary for administration of the ILS as it pertains to everyday workings of the library. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Now that SirsiDynix has been acquired by a new venture capitalist firm, their entire attitude (and the attitude of the customers) has changed. The employees at SirsiDynix seem to be freer to make decisions that will positively impact their customers, rather thank simply towing the corporate, Microsoft-mindset line. I appreciate this, greatly. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are in the early steps of using the BLUE Cloud products and believe these products will make Horizon a more user friendly and flexible system for better patron service. But we see a lot of work ahead before we see that benefit. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are very interested in where SirsiDynix is headed with their BlueCloud products and Linked Data. However, we don't think the product functionality is complete enough yet to replace our current system. As to the library's collection; due to both a move and the transition to more electronic resources our collection total has been reduced. (Library type: Law; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Two major complaints this time around. #1. I find that I am showing the support person how to do things on my LMS as they no longer seem to have Horizon specialists in the same way they used to. #2. Rewriting an LMS is a big job, and it is taking a long time. For the last two-ish years we see wireframes instead of products, and new modules are released without critical functionality, so yes they have released a new module, but no it's not useable yet. And no, often updates are not released on schedule so that I have to reorganise planned dates with my IT section. Horizon is a solid system for managing print resources. As time progresses and our collection shifts and more time is spent managing electronic resources this won't be the case. The vendor is offering a new add on product for this which we have not purchased. We are in a holding pattern at present waiting for systems to mature a bit further to reach some of the potential of the cloud, but have been in this state several years. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Since our users rely primarily on journal literature we are less interested in the workings of the ILS/catalog than we are in our link resolver and the quality of the knowledgebase associated with it. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
SirsiDynix's support for the Horizon ILS is very good. However, the impression I have gotten over the past couple years is that support for new products -- such as BLUECloud, Web Services, MobileCirc -- is not so good. However, I would say that compared to some other systems suppliers we deal with, in terms of customer support SirsiDynix is way ahead. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are testing Sirsi/Dynix's BlueCloud modules to see if the connectivity for our branch libraries improves over thecurrent use of client/server connections. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We recently upgraded our system, adding new features that allow for our Ebooks to be reflected in the catalog. This is extending the life of our Horizon system while enhancing our online capabilities for patrons. We are happy that SirsiDynix is moving in a direction that allows for the evolution of systems and that they are moving towards web based services for some library functions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The above number of items in our collection does not include ebooks. We do like the new Blue Cloud products Sirsi is offering. Soon they will have the ability for students to use a credit card online to pay library fines/fees. However, sometimes new Sirsi products run late in delivery. Also, there has been a delay in getting eResource Central to work with Ebsco ebooks (in loading, deleting our ebooks for us). Sirsi has informed me that they are working with Ebsco to resolve this issue. We recently went over to the Sirsi SaaS service, so far we have been satisfied with it. There was an adjustment period for the staff. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Although Horizon doesn't not provide everything we would like now, we plan to use SirsiDynix BLUEcloud applications to extend and enhance Horizon functionality. In this way, we hope to avoid the expense and disruption of migrating to a new ILS. With the recent spate of acquisitions, we perceive the market offerings to have shrunk recently. It is a time a change, and we will wait to see how things shake out before considering a migration. Canadian and British Columbia laws limit our ability to participate in most hosted solutions. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
SirsiDynix is an innovative and responsive company that cares about its customers. We have always received prompt support. We have enjoyed a long and productive relationship with SD and hope to continue that relationship. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
SirsiDynix has provided excellent customer service. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? Horizon ILS does not provide Fiscal Year reporting. Very little reporting is available. Required to purchase an additional reporting product. How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? There is an additional ERC product that is suppose to provide a single interface to all electronic products. Horizon ILS, we create placeholder bibs with links to external resource. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Summon will be going out with the EOS implementation this month. It does not work with most law library vendors such as Westlaw since they won't provide the data. The Summon representative was not up front about his initially and we had a lot of broken promises that it would get better. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Although Koha is being considered, the necessary technical support on all implementation phases and maintenance is a main concern. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)
I would mark the satisfaction with the ILS higher if we could afford a Discovery Layer, but unfortunately, we are not able to do so at this time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Technical support for SirsiDynix has been fantastic. The customer support has been practically non existent however for us over the past two years. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I like the support we get from SirsiDynix support, and we also like their vision for where the products are going. Horizon itself has a lot of limitations that stem from its age. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Nos interesa seguir participando de esta encuesta en el futuro. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Due to the slowness that SirsiDynix has moved to an improved circulation module and public interface the Library has opted to change our ILS system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Sirsi-Dynix Horizon technicians are fast, accurate, and a joy to work with! We are a small library and they are extremely helpful. Tech support is the reason we stuck with Horizon when we were considering a new ILS in 2015. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We will be joining a consortium using Sierra in the spring of 2016. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Has improved (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
SirsiDynix have in the last 2 or 3 years made a renewed commitment to Horizon which is good news for libraries who did not migrate to Symphony. Our library for a variety of reasons has not yet seen how the newer BLUECloud products work in practice. 2016 will be the year in which we have an opportunity to do so and that will certainly influence our impressions of the product and the company going forward. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
currently migrating to Polaris from Horizon (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We like the functionality of Evergreen, but with Horizon being developed again and the quoted support costs for Evergreen being relatively high, we are no longer looking to migrate at this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
The functionality of Evergreen is a good fit, but the support costs were high right now. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
New web based modules have not lived up to our expectations. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? - I placed this low because we don't pay for anything extra that the company does have in place to handle electronic resources, so for us, the basic product does not handle our eResources very well at all. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our catalogue remains in semi-stasis while its use and centrality to our service provision decreases each year. Most of our negative feelings toward it stem from local IT support rather than the vendor - centralised IT in the institution saw the dedicated Library IT resources merged into 'business application teams', which slowly lost staff and corporate knowledge over time until we now have a tiny fraction of one person's time dedicated to ongoing maintenance (forget development). (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We will be implementing both Mobile Circ and eResource Central this year which will increase the functionality of our current ILS. We would like to add a discovery layer as well, but so far have not been able to afford one. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have had Horizon since the mid 1990's so the answer regarding the installation is somewhat irrelevant now. We are monitoring developments in the ILS marketplace but not actively seeking a replacement at the moment. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Not sure if this matters or how to represent this on the survey, but we migrated to Horizon SaaS in July 2014. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Mergers and acquistions have made current vendor less responsive. They never deliver promised products or upgrades on time or at all. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)
We are in the process of migrating to KOHA with ByWater Solutions. We are excited about the opportunities found in open source software and hope to provide more responsive customizations tailored to our community needs. Open source with ByWater is more cost effective for us. Propriety systems tend to have their own agendas and priorities that don't often meet the needs of individual libraries. Development times were just taking too long, leaving us with a very inadequate public interface. Horizon has an very good cataloging module, more than serviceable circulation and acquisition modules, fair reporting but a woefully out-of-date, difficult to change public OPAC. Like many proprietary systems the costs are high and you have to pay too much to get beyond the basics of circulation, cataloging and acquisitions. We've found SirsiDynix staff knowledgeable, helpful and responsive. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our experience with Insignia is that it is not user friendly, especially for school libraries. The software is cumbersome & redundant. There are too many options, most of which school libraries do not need. On the features we really want, the program is weak. We were told when purchasing the program that Insignia would customize the program to meet our needs. That has not been the case. When we ask them to add or remove a feature, they say they can't because of their other users. If it were not for budget restraints we would choose another ILS. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Insignia is good and offers many options in one package but has issues working out bugs the last few years (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
It isn't relevant with this questions now. In Denmark almost every library will be on a new platform i 2016. A system based on open source. In Denmark we also use a Opac based on open source - almost everyone uses Danish Digital Library as a platform. I an sorry for my english - I'm not use for writing. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small)
The answers reflect our current state, while Tind is still under development. I expect there will be a sharp rise in the satisfaction numbers I report next year, when Tind has more functionality and is more polished. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are very satisfied with the service we receive from this vendor for the current system. However, we do sometime have difficulty in getting a response when trying to work with them on getting a new feature created or established in the ILS. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Good cloud solution for small or medium library (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Actualmente el catálogo es de consulta interna (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Module acquisition insatisfaisant. Problème de taille de la base et de plantages inexpliqués. Problème de lien entre les ressources électroniques et l'ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
we have migrated to Koha using Bywater Solutions as our hosting company and are entirely satisfied with their support and the ILS implemented, we have no plans to change this in the future. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Koha is a work in progress and I love it's customization. It also helps that our consortium is AWESOME and we are perpetually coming up with ways to make the system better. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We continue to enjoy the flexibility of open-source and are fortunate to have a staff person who can manage the coding to customize to fit our needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Koha has been very effective for us. There have been minor issues with a certain functionality that we'd like to see implemented, but nothing that affects us on a regular basis. Most of those issues were an attempt to solve a human (staff) problem with the ILS. ByWater Solutions has been fantastic. It does seem (though I haven't recorded this so it's just my overall impression) that customer service response times have increased a bit in the past year. Still, we're getting good service. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Koha does the job. Occasionally I need reports that I ask Koha staff to provide for us. They have been very good in responding to requests for unique reports as well as troubleshooting problems. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Koha is a very stable and easy to manage ILS. ByWater Solutions support is very responsive and knowledgeable. They have a friendly and helpful approach. The Koha-Community is a very active group. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Good luck with your results. A good and useful tool! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are very happy with the service and tech. support Bywater Solutions provides us. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Improved Search functions would be nice. Electronic resource management would be easier if we could batch delete, but we understand that ByWater prohibits this function as a safety measure. System administration is good, reliability for upgrades is much improved from our initial experience. But customer support can be frustrating, reported problems are not always promptly fixed, responses don't fully answer the questions. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Already have an open source ILS - Koha (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We remain very pleased that we moved to Koha. We are no longer at the mercy of an ILS that is gobbled up by another company with fears of an uncertain future. The cost is a fraction of the previous and this is more of an investment. This ILS will outlive us and only continue to improve. By librarians for libraries.. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Koha is great. Bywater is fair. Bywater is quick to answer the phone and great for system down but migration of other libraries into the consortium is awful and questions to resolve non urgent issue is not quick. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are very pleased with our relationship with ByWater. Their communication and training with/for us are really top-notch; it's nice to not feel any hesitation about bringing up questions/issues with them. Koha is serving the needs of our physical and electronic collections quite nicely! (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We would be considering a separate discover interface in addition to an ILS if we could afford one. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Mill run no longer supporting our system as they have joined ByWater Solutions (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our Koha Consortium is great - I love it! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Koha works well for a small subject-specific research library with extensive special collections holdings. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Koha has a support staff that communicates often and personally. I'm impressed with that aspect. The catalog isn't the sleekest looking, but that is expected for an open source product. Reports I find to be challenging compared to big companies like Follett who have rather user-friendly options. You need to build basic code in Koha to make the reports initially. There are also few options for global deletions of records with no items and old patron accounts. These issues would really help out cleaning up our records. Though these issues are prominent currently, overall, Koha does what we need it to do and the customer support is very strong. The pros are greater than the cons. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Bywater's KOHA ILS is unsatisfactory and does not meet student, faculty or librarian needs. Check out, check in and searching of all kinds are very slow in both the staff client and OPAC. Keyword search results are not accurate. The most relevant records do not appear at the top of the search results. Brief summary bib records are incomplete, omitting subtitles and series volume numbers. Search results limiter choices are confusing. Last year the Bywater staff turned off ILS access at one of the 5 schools in our consortium without notifying any consortium librarians. They turned it off because they failed to correctly interpret system activity. Bywater staff will not fix bugs or make changes paid for by open source community members until a new version is released, which causes delays of several months. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 1)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The Koha system was purchased by the school without really considering the needs of a library that is 99 percent electronic. It is almost never used by anyone but the library director. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 1)
[...] is a small academic consortium with some libraries only having a few staff to handle all aspects of the ILS. Prior to migration we assessed that not all ILS functionality was being used by members due to small staff sizes. However, that being said, it has been an adjustment to lose certain functionality our libraries had come to expect, namely indexing and authority control. We'd like to see Koha thrive into the future and be a true alternative for all kinds of libraries but especially academic libraries. For that to happen libraries themselves need to try and step up and contribute to improving that ILS. We hope to see better indexing over time as that's the number one shortcoming. The serial and acquisitions modules are also lacking. We would like to help shape Koha over time. With some strides over the next two-three years it could be a true option for small academics. Most are contemplating ILS moves right now so developments in 2016 are crucial as then the wave of ILS changeover may subside. ... (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
ByWater Solutions has surpassed my expectations as an implementation and support provider. I couldn't be happier. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
I personally am not happy with the Koha system. The patron side is great and user friendly, but the administrative side that I use, is very combersome and does not offer reports that work properly for what I need the accounting side is awful and causes extra work for me and others. If we ask to get it fixed, it costs to do that and it is not important to the company that provides the service. I feel they are trying to make the patrons happy, but the the ones who need it and wont listen to us when we tell them what we need. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We've been using the open source Koha ILS for almost a year. We're very pleased with it so far. Flexibility is very important to us and using an open source product has allowed us to make many customizations, especially to the user interface. We have library staff who have been able to do some of this for us. And we have also received quite a bit of support from ByWater Solutions. Working with them to make our changes to the system and with other support issues has been great. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
ByWater was terrific when the library was migrating and training to use Koha. They continue to be responsive to all of our concerns. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I inherited an open source system and do not care for the lack of functionality, slow servers and that every upgrade needs to be paid for before it can even be started. I would personally never choose an open source program but I am stuck with it as part of a consortium. I would love there to be a better option for software but I have to put up with the current system and have no other choices. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
We are overall satisfied with the ILS but it runs very very slowly at times. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Koha is wonderful open source product. We are still relatively new to the system and there is still more to explore to get the most from it. I enjoy seeing our patrons using the system and having a vested interest in their library. More power to the patron! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
As part of the [...] , we are migrating to Bywater Solutions' Koha ILS, however the migration is not yet complete and we have not yet "gone live." So far, our experience with Bywater has been excellent. Their staff is enthusiastic, knowledgeable and supportive. We believe the Koha ILS will be a significant improvement, especially for our patrons. (Library type: Public; collection size: small)
We are a member of the [...] . We use the Open Source Koha with hosting and support via Bywater. Tech support if first within our consortium then to Bywater if not solved. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I really think open source is an excellent way for libraries to go. Since there are great companies, like ByWater Solutions, around to help it is easy for large and very small libraries to use open source products like Koha. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We just migrated to Koha hosted by Bywater Solutions after over 20 years with Millennium from III. We have been truly impressed by the service the Bywater team provides and with the capabilities of Koha, particular the opportunities it provides for integration with other systems and platforms. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are a member of on open source Koha consortium with hosting and support from ByWater Solutions. We are happy with our ILS for the most part, but frequent upgrades sometimes seem to disrupt functions that have been working well. Invoicing from ByWater has been irregular and they have been unresponsive to our questions about costs from them that have not been billed for months (to our advantage). (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
it is wonderful experience working with ByWater Solutions - getting the benefits of proprietary ILS product with this support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Bywater support does a good job. Koha lacks some of the functionality we had when we used a commercial ILS, but it's much less expensive. Overall, we are well satisfied. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
After 18 years with Verso (we were were one of the original public libraries to use it) we switched to Koha/Bywater this year. The transition was much easier than we expected, thanks to the support of both Bywater and Autographics. Open source? We have successfully used open source software on our public access computers for many years, so Koha was not something we feared. The public adapted immediately. Bywater helped us customize the catalog interface so that it fits seamlessly within our web pages. The staff had a slightly more difficult transition as most of us had never used any ILS system other than Verso. A couple of features we liked are missing (particularly the slick ways Verso handles (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
The product is very much a work in progress. We have contributed to development and it takes a very long time. Customer service from ByWater has improved over the past year, but only because we have been very vocal about our needs, almost to the point of being obnoxious. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
ByWater's customer support responsiveness was slower this year, but I believe it may have been due to understaffing/vacant positions. In the later part of the year there were marked improvements in response time for tickets. We have had a long and successful relationship with ByWater, and are pleased overall with their services. We already have an open source ILS, and are happy with it. Therefore I answered question #15 from the position that we would consider open-source ILS again, should be decide to move to another ILS. The "number of items" listed above is the number of "volumes" or physical books that we have, per 2014-2015 NCES data. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The Library installed Koha originally [...] . This is the most awesome easy install. It installed in about 15 minutes following the instructions. Books were imported in about 45 minutes after editing with Marc Edit. this took days but only as a result of having to figure out the format and fields to properly import. The virtual drive makes instant backup easy and re-installation a flash. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are extremely happy with ByWater Solutions. While Koha may have room for growth, every ILS does, it works for us very well and we appreciate being able to suggest and support future development projects to improve it, giving us ownership and participation in the Koha community. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Customer service was already very good to excellent, so question asking to rate worse or better is answered as neutral because service remains very good to excellent. (Library type: Public; collection size: small)
With open source, it is not just the ILS that matters, but the support vendor. ByWater does well for our consortium, but they cannot keep up. And many of the things we'd like to implement are "developments" and cost plenty of money. It would have been nice to know more about that aspect before the launch date. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We recently (prior to Fall15 quarter) migrated from Insignia to Bywater's Koha and are still working on setting up the ILS to meet our needs. Bywater has exhibited great customer service in this regard. I expect that the functionality of and our satisfaction with Koha will increase as we work together. How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? The library's print resources include course reserves which are highly utilized but not all of them are currently checking out to the appropriate due dates- manual selection of due date & time are someitmesrequired. How likely is it that this library would consider implementing an open source ILS? Bywater Koha is an open source ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
August 2015 we migrated from SirsiDynix Symphony to Koha 3.18 with support from ByWaterSolutions. Overall, it has been a good experience. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We changed from OCLC because we could no longer afford to use it, we now have Bookware Suite which suits our needs fine. Since we are so rural, we have not used ILL in three years due to costs. We now have Zip Books a grant program from the State. Zip Books grant ends this year, however I am hoping it will continue somewhat with a shared cost. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Much happier with the enhancement process with open source ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Kohi ILS is remarkably slow, which I suspect is a communication issue. When combined with the convoluted workflow it is very frustrating. Also, it often makes transpositions in the database- which could also be caused by the communication issues. I would recommend any library considering this ILS so self host, maybe eliminating some of the transaction delay. I would also suggest to the developers that someone start working on some kind of script or app type ported interface. This would be quicker than HTML, and the workflows could be designed much better. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)
It seems like a long time to fix "bugs" in our system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Koha doesn't seem to work well for our public schools. So many basic reports and functions that seem to be commonly used in the publics schools either aren't available and have to be created, or they don't work. It is not an easy or convenient system to use. It's also been unreliable. I would prefer a pre-made package that is especially for the elementary school. Bywater has been great, but I just feel that Koha isn't the right fit for us (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 0)
The system is not designed for school libraries and we don't want to be the ones to develop the program. We would like a program that is already developed and works effectively in a school setting. There has been some confusion on who we go to for support - it has been mostly directed in house. Now that we are aware of how easy it is to contact ByWater we will do that first. ByWater has been good with training and trying to troubleshoot issues but we would like a program that is fully developed for an elementary school. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)
Bywater is fantastic to work with, but their rates for ongoing support are steep for small libraries. We will probably have to drop support soon. A minimal support option at a greatly discounted rate would be wonderful once the initial difficulties are settled, or ramped up training to allow libraries to continue on their own. Teach a librarian to fish... (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are generally satisfied with Koha and BWS. Primary problems are in the area of development and old, uncorrected software bugs. Based on our experience, the existing model of development with BWS leaves much to be desired due to poor communication and lack of collaboration with clients. These problems are compounded when development is slow or behind schedule. A new development process should be implemented that emphasizes better communication and customer involvement. A possible improvement could be the creation of formal design specifications that include a description of the work to be done and the costs (client should pay for this analysis). Once develpment is funded, BWS should collaborate and work with the customer(s) during development to ensure that a workable solution is developed. If the development requires significant or complex pages, users should be included in the screen design. The emphasis on communication and collaboration may also keep projects on time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We're very happy with our current library management system (KOHA) and are not considering changing. We're also very happy with the support we receive from the KOHA community and our support providers at CALYX. (Library type: Other; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Calyx are a small library tech specialist company based in Australia. We are their first hosted client in New Zealand. Calyx are 100% committed to open source tech, the entire project was managed using open source software. Their project management and planning, which they gave us access to, was conducted in Open Office, and we used open source web conferencing software for training and discussion. We are delighted with their service overall which included customization of both the OPAC and our staff client. Koha was first developed in NZ, and some of the people first involved with the development now work for Catalyst, the main Koha provider in NZ, however the cost of going with them was just too prohibitive overall. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Impressed with the functionalities of the system. Right from implementation it has upgraded all our client services and streamlined our operations. The cost of any customizations however will always be an issue for us. (Library type: Church; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The Koha product has a very active and supportive community, a committed team of developers and a well managed update schedule. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are still in the migration phase from OASIS to Koha, therefore, are still working out some issues in our data but the Equinox support team are addressing all issues quickly. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Cannot, have not, answered questions concerning outside support "company".) We are satisfied that open-source solutions (Koha) and our own in-house expertise meet our needs. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Koha community is very helpful for the success of Koha. (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are evaluating Vufind to integrate Koha with other software (Access To Memory: Atom), we are not thinking about replace the system or OPAC at all. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Nuestro produto se introdujo por el personal de la Escuela, . (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We're one of the Koha "go-it-alone" vendors, so we're not getting support from any vendor. Our ILS isn't a major part of our library's function--our circulation is maybe in the high two figures each month, and most of the literature searching/literature providing is from journals. Koha does everything we need, requires little attention, and is saving us thousands of dollars per year. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We believe in the ProQuest vision for Intota and are hoping that the merger with Ex Libris will result in faster development and cost-effective best-of-breed choices for us. Koha has been an effective interim solution and works just as well (if not better) than our Voyager instance, but we don't see it as a long-term solution given that most of our collection emphasis is on e-resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
happy (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We implemented Koha in-house and we are maintaining it by ourselves. That's why I am not able to respond about our satisfaction with the vendor. We are also contributing our Koha developments to the Koha community (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Very happy with Koha and the community of users of this ILS. Best decision we have ever made in recent time! Really looking forward to the upcoming new version (3.22) with its new features! (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The library has been using ILS KOHA since October 2011. Koha was installed and configured by the library professionals and functioning perfectly. Circulation, acquisition, cataloguing of physical resources as well as electronic are being done by the ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We don't have maintenance contract with any outside company. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
At [...] , our library team has implemented Koha, Dspace, VuFind and Drupal. We are managing these systems by ourselves. We are not depending on any vendors. Our library team is maintaining and upgrading the all systems time to time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are already using an open source ILS which is Koha. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We migrated from Winnebago this past year because the local school no longer supports it. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
El Koha es un SGB open source, el soporte lo brinda la comunidad que se conforma, generalmente por los mismos bibliotecarios que lo utilizan, informáticos, etc. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
La biblioteca no tiene presupuesto para suscribirse a bases de datos de publicaciones periódicas ni a plataformas de ebooks, por tal razón el Koha cumple los requisitos necesarios para procesar el material impreso y lo que se encuentre en open access en la web, de interés para nuestros usuarios. De todos modos, estaría interesada en herramientas de descubrimiento de acceso abierto como VuFind para poder buscar desde un solo "box" también en grandes bases de datos de acceso abierto como doaj, scielo, etc. Las nuevas plataformas de servicios como Koali OLE, open source, puede ser una opción a futuro. La empresa que instaló el Koha en ALADI se llama SAbIT S.R.L. y se la contrató para dejar funcionando el sistema adaptado a nuestra realidad, pero no queda contratada en forma permanente para posteriores ajustes. El Departamento de Informática será quien lo mantenga próximamente (aunque no tienen mucha experiencia). También se han hecho consultas a las lista de la Comunidad Koha. En Uruguay somos los únicos, junto a la [...] (quien le hizo tantas adaptaciones, que ya no parece un koha ni se pueden adaptar a las nuevas actualizaciones. Por tal motivo, he comenzado a contactarme con bibliotecas de Argentina. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Catálogo disponible de manera local. (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
tenemos KOHA. estamos intentando que nos lo actualicen y que una empresa se haga cargo del mantenimiento. Actualmente no tenemos mantenimiento (eran los propios informaticos del ayuntamiento quien se encargaban) (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
I believe KOHA has the ability to fulfill our needs, but our IT person is the one that has installed it and makes any changes with it and he doesn't know what to do to get it to work correctly. I can add items or delete items and it will be several months before they disappear or are searchable. Our IT person has to do a complete re-index to get the items to show up. He has tried things that have been on the KOHA list, but so far nothing has worked. Due to finances we have not contacted someone else for support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We worked with a KOHA support vendor initially but found them ultimately unnecessary. Searching for answers & procedures within the user community was more productive and, of course, free of charge. This community is amazing in terms of both knowledge and generosity. Since updates are created/administrated by a committee of users, fixes are responsive to user needs and implemented quickly. This has been a tremendous change from vendors who promise annually with contract signing and fail to deliver. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
This survey doesn't have responses that cover open source or self-sufficient small libraries very well. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We utilized ByWater for the migration of our ILS, but have been self-supporting for several years. We were very satisfied with ByWater's performance. We self-host our ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our ILS vendor is... myself (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Koha is generally an excellent library system and meets our needs. Because it is open source we have been able to extract data into QIk View data management system, thus overcoming one its weaknesses - reporting. We were also able to set up EDI purchasing to meet our specific requirements. We had some problems with automating data import and configuration between our systems and suppliers - now resolved but we have spent approx. £3000 post installation on development costs. We would have liked e-resource management but systems with this function were prohibitively expensive. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
- We haven't explored the entire functionality of the system like using it to manage e-resources, we do not receive support from any company, we rely on colleagues who have the same (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Just have the nagging feeling that current vendor is losing interest in the ILS. Their documentation is pretty opaque. Asking for some usually elicits the response that we should 'check the release notes' ... but if the "feature" we are asking about came about in some earlier software release, there's no real way to know just where to look for help and explanations. As a result, we do a lot of blind flipping of switches to see what happens if we do this, or that, or these other two things in various combinations. At least that's how it seems. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
After almost 5 years, we still do not have the functionality we were told we would have on go live date. Basic searching is still not available. Sub titles do not show on pick lists, Check boxes only work page by page, not by search results..... (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)
We are on 'LibLime Academic Koha' [LAK] They are planning to merge the LAK and Liblime Koha (public library version) next year - hopefully that won't be like a migration. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
[...] is a member of the [...] . ILS support and development, and contact directly with PTFS LibLime, is handled by System staff. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Currently using an open source ILS depending upon the definition of that - LibLime Koha. It might more accurately be termed Open Development. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We switched because our former representative was unavailable for questions and explanations more often than available. The former system would have been fine had there been better communication with our representative. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Things were much better before the last major upgrade. Now, the default seems to fall to whatever mode we do not want ... (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
[...] anticipates moving to the LibLime academic codebase in 2016 which should improve the access to electronic resources and which will provide us with a discovery layer. We do an annual survey of our libraries regarding Koha and 75% are satisfied with the system, hence the 7 rating for the first two questions. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Would love to an ILL module, and more training on the technology options available in Koha. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
While my organization is satisfied overall with our open-source ILS, the vendor we have selected for hosting and support has not provided the level of customer service we would like to receive. Therefore, we are looking at keeping our existing ILS but soliciting a new host and support vendor in 2016. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
While we'd love to implement an open source ILS, our parent company manages server space and working with IT can be difficult and require getting into a project queue. For that reason, we seek out SAAS solutions that are hosted by a third-party who provide support. It reduces the resources we need within the Library to manage these systems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
The vendors for Aspen Cat are terrific and I have never experienced such timely availability. Someone is always available and ready to help with any problem. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
In addition to Koha we use open source software called CUFTS for e-resource management. This is also hosted and supported by PTFS Europe. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Print resource question not applicable Only been with the Compnay 10 months so question regarding improvement in customer service not applicable. [...] (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The Library moved its catalogue records onto Koha from September 2015 and the web interface was launched at the end of October 2015 to coincide with the opening of our new library. Not all the funcionality has been applied yet and we do not use it manage our electronic resources yet, but we will be evaluating the options for integrating EBSCO. Feedback from library users has been very positive. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Estamos pensado migrar de Lapasoft a Sophia por que es la misma empresa la que nos proporciona este nuevo sistema. No tenemos otros recursos (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)
The Libero ILS providers encourage their users to be actively involved with their products development. Libero Users feel like they have a real ownership of the product and genuine input into it's direction. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Libero runs in any browser. No other client software required. The database Chaché from Intersystem is very reliable and fast. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Many upgrades and enhancements are client driven which makes for a very satisfying relationship. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Library World does not function well with the Library of Michigan's MEL system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
What we like best about TLC is the flexibility to change many things to suit our library and the relationships we have with their staff. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Staff seem to like it. It was here when I was hired in 2011. It is fairly inexpensive and works okay. I would just like to advance into the 21st Century. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
TLC and OCLC are not playing well together so we have recently discovered that realtime availability in Discovery cannot be accomplished for a significant portion of the collection. We do not use TLC's acquisition system and it is not truly integrated. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
We use what the district provides. We have very little input as to the system they purchase for us, and usually select the lowest bid. We just recently upgraded and lost all of our reports, except those offered by the vendor and a few someone else created. So we are back to searching for hours at a time for the correct report for our needs. We also lost many of our books. Often what was deleted shows up again, or when you try to do something for a student, it is messed up. (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Previous to this year, customer support often answered the phone quickly. Lately, the phone diverts to administrative offices, who create a ticket for a tech to get back to you. The techs are just as knowledgeable, but we've been routed to admin more frequently. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
75000 items include e-content through Overdrive and One Click Digital. The Library Corporation is really great to work with. I have used 3 other ILS vendors but they have been the most responsive and we are a smaller library. Very happy with them and highly recommend them to anyone (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The strategic direction of the vendor is sound, but implementation and support efforts often fall short of expectations. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
The Library Corporation is extremely customer oriented, actively soliciting and implementing customer suggestions for product enhancement (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
We went out on RFP last year and chose to remain with TLC Library.Solution. We did add socialflow to work with ILS to send information out to the parents and community. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
New library director wants to look at different ILS vendors. As the ILS liason I am very satisfied with TLC and do not wish to change systems. The issue we have is that our in house IT staff cannot properly support the system. I would like to move to their hosted solution so that we can operate outside the government IT department and its restrictive and non-supportive atmosphere. We are unable to do this per IT restrictions and cannot switch to TLC's LS Staff web product due to incompatibility with our current POS system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
TLC has a very responsive customer support team; however, at times, we have found we have to prod them to follow through on support tickets. Additionally, we have to be very careful to fully communicate our needs as we are one of the few academic libraries using Library.Solution. That said, the product owners are more than willing to listen to our recommendations for software enhancement. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I am very pleased with TLC's cost, customer service, training, and ongoing updates. I am particularly pleased that they "hold our hands" on the rare occasion we need something done - saving me the need to hire a systems librarian or involve our local IT Department. The only reason I am considering migrating to Innovative Sierra is that it might save money through a consortium purchase / subscription. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have been very pleased with our relationship with The Library Corporation product owners, sales, product offerings and Support during our 7-year experience with them. They are attuned to innovation, routine maintenance needs and the changing library environment. Our library patrons often comment on the ease and flexibility of our OPAC. Staff can easily manipulate cataloging and circulation modules. They communicate in a variety of ways and often. We often congratulate ourselves on making a great choice with TLC. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Always responsive and supportive. Great online support site and they follow-up with email and phone calls. Updates are scheduled so that Library operations are not impacted. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I don't think I included e-books the last time the survey was filled out. Also, our e-books number jumped drastically this year because the whole state in now included in our count. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
TLC (vendor) is a company with excellent service. I think this is one of the most important thing that a company should have. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We spend approx. $20k+ each time we re-sign with the current ILS vendor, however it seems to be lacking in may areas and each time an enhancement request is made, it seems as if we are nickel and dimed quite a bit. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
I have worked for 30 years in public libraries. The Library Corporation has absolutely THE WORST search tools I have come across during my professional career. At another library where we had TLC, they charged us 7 years for a product that we did not have (OPAC book covers display) and tried to give us one year of free covers to offset it! I finally got to the top and got our money back, but during the fracus they blamed OUR IT PERSONNELL for improper installation!! My primary disappointment with them is their horrid search tools. I intend to leave this provider when the funds become available. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
I've been in this position and worked with this ILS for 5 months. This is my eighth or so ILS that I've worked with in my career. There are some features that are missing and some things don't work as well as in other ILS, but TLC excels at customer service. They are constantly trying to improve their products and release small updates every few months, as oppose to other companies that do large upgrades that take lots of time and tweaking to get to how you want them to be. Some in the consortium feel that going open source would be better, but I have my doubts. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I hate being in a consortium. I like our ILS just fine but could never afford it on our own. Rock meet hard place. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We like TLC but the State of Missouri has a lot of libraries going to Evergreen. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
WE use TLC's web-based products and find them to meet the needs of our patrons as well as staff. TLC seems to embrace new technology and we look forward to new innovation. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
TLC's customer support is outstanding. If you call you ALWAYS get to talk to a real person and not just leave a message or fill out a ticket. They are incredibly patient and willing to work with you to solve a problem or figure out a way to do what you need done. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
TLC has worked very well for our library. The customer service is only a phone call away. As the product goes, there is always room for improvement, indeed it works for us. Many thanks, (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
There are issues with this system that do not conform with standard library needs. The Profile Link system is a convoluted mess! The technicians who created this labyrinth software probably have no problem navigating the maze, but accidental techies have a real problem with this system. Thank (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
TLC is so quick in responding to every problem which we don't have many. They also listen to their customers and work to implement and customize each system to that customer's requests. Best yet they have been very reasonable on costs and keeping costs stable even in an unstable economy. I couldn't ask for a better company or product. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
ILS vendor support for discovery services is a consideration. We are implementing LS2 product interfaces along with the changes associated with the latest product upgrade. We were waiting for sufficient client-based functionality to migrate to the web-based LS2 product interfaces. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
In searching for a new ILS, its ability to interface with a robotic retrieval system will be a major factor. (Library type: State; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
TLC is overall a very responsive and reliable system and vendor. Their customer support team is very knowledgeable although I sometimes feel they answer a question without fully reading it so don't answer it properly. But other than that, we are very satisfied with our ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
This is the final survey for this library. Emmanuel Christian Seminary Library merged with Milligan College Library. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
TLC support has been generally excellent. We did have some issues integrating with OverDrive but we resolved that issue with using email addresses rather than library cards as students always forgot their card numbers. Also, we wanted to use Library Thing with our LS2 PAC but most of Library Thing is incompatible. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Wish: Patrons want series in order displayed in public access catalog Wish: Library staff want to cancel search request in LS system Both have been request since 2010 TLC provides a good inventory control system, Bookings (Library type: School; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
TLC Library.Solution is a reliable ILS that is very attractively priced. Accessibility to top-notch customer service, on the rare occasions when it is needed, is good. Even though TLC is not prominent in the academic market, our experience indicates it is an excellent alternative to open-source systems for small college libraries that are seeking to cut costs. EBSCO Discovery Service is an endlessly adaptable, full-service discovery tool, but finicky and difficult to configure. Its administrative module is a study in arcane complexity. Even though the company has made substantial progress over the last couple of years in resolving links from ProQuest databases, EDS is still prone to be flummoxed by errant minutiae in non-EBSCO citations. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Most of the OPAC products in our price range appear to be designed for elementary schools. Good at sorting by reading level, which is irrelevant to our users, but bad at sorting by material type/format, which is important to our users. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
It's pretty basic, but it's inexpensive and it works. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The search engine for the system is not very forgiving and does not suggest any close alternatives (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
The two things we dislike about the ILS is the serials module and lack of an acquisitions module. However, in terms of cataloging and circulation, it's very easy to use. The user interface is simple and clean. Also, the reports are easy to generate. (Library type: Law; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We selected LibraryWorld because the cost is under $500 per year. It is very limited in features, but sufficient for our present needs when paired with WorldCat Discovery, as explained below. The biggest drawback of LibraryWorld is extremely limited ability to customize. Our patrons search our collections though WorldCat Discovery and are directed to LibraryWorld for local holdings only. For collection size, I have listed local holdings, since we do not search electronic holdings in LibraryWorld. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I am totally satisfied with LibraryWorld. And students find they can use it with ease. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Reporting is an issue. Reports do not give all information in the catalog for an entry, and they are not customizable. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
LibraryWorld is very basic and within our budget. It doesn't allow patrons to manage their own accounts. We're seeing issues with that. Patrons want to place their own items on hold and handle renewals. We'd like to move to a different system, but for now we're with Library World. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
It works well for circulation, but it has limitations as a report generator. (Library type: Public; collection size: small)
I have been the librarian for less than a year so could not answer all of the questions. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
Current locally developed system uses MS Access. It is limited by the native constrains of Access, and is dependent on one person for maintenance. To date we have not identified a non-cloud-based commercial or open-source solution that fits our needs and budget. (Library type: Museum; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
I am happy with Mandarin, but I am concerned that migration to web-based automation systems focuses primarily on the patron UI, while neglecting much of the functionality of client-based programs in terms of cataloging and reports. I am thrilled to see progress with the OPAC interface, but I use the rest of my automation system more than everyone else combined uses the OPAC, so it's frustrating to see the functionality of those components so diminished in newer iterations. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are going to receive the new upgrade from Mandarin for our campus this year. The long-range plans for the University's libraries is to create a joint catalog for the two campuses ([...] . We have not discussed a vendor for this because it is not planned for the near future. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
I could not run mandarin and the Oasis system effectively without the assistance of [...] and Gary [...] at [...] BOCES. I rarely use Mandarin, the corporation, for support. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Library currently owns sierra (purchased prior to product release) but has had difficulty implementing it. If this is not successful we will likely begin the process of considering different paths. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 0)
Innovative Customer Support is good. However, their Sales has deteriorated significantly in the past year. It is very difficult to get a response from them. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
LMS choice going forward will largely depend on our Council amalgamating with other Councils in the coming year. We will aim to share the same LMS across all libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Do not feel III has done enough to address new workflows resulting from increased use of electronic resources as well as traditional print materials. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are in the middle of the tendering process so we are under confidentiality terms right now. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
As a medical library we have moved to mostly electronic resources. The Millennium really doesn't handle electronic very well. Our users use the catalog less and less. We are waiting for the next version of Intota that is supposed be able to replace the ILS functions. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Millennium, and our ILS server currently located on campus, are reaching end-of-life status. We will need to migrate to Sierra (Innovative) or another ILS system. I have seen two demos of OCLC WMS and I'm not overly impressed, so far, with the product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our library took waaaay too long to consider migration, and our current ILS no longer meets the needs of our patrons or our collection. We are looking at a migration within the next 2 years, partly since Millennium will not be supported much longer and also because it's no longer 2007. We have only just implemented Summon in the last week (still in beta testing, really) and are considering building our next system around Summon or a similar discovery service. OCLC WorldShare would be my first choice, but if Summon proves to deliver what it promises, we could easily go with a simple (but contemporary) ILS and integrate it into discovery services rather than migrate to an entirely different LSP. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
Innovative Interfaces: holding your library's data for ransom. As a for-profit company, I rate them just slightly better than airlines in terms of customer hostility. It doesn't matter the size or reputation of your library, Innovative's primary goal (other than making a profit, which in and of itself is not inherently evil) is to obfuscate and hide as much functionality as possible. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)
We are hosted on iii with an application service manager who handles almost all support issues. Customer service is great our sales rep not so much. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We manage print journals and electronic resources using True Serials and 360 Link, so it is hard to measure the usefulness of our ILS in this area. W may be forced to move to OpenSource if Millennium support is withdrawn in the next 3-5 years. Not sure if your items in the collection number is only print. We are increasingly using electronic journals and book collections. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are looking for a solution that integrates the ILS with the Discovery interface. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
III has improved customer service and appears interesting in working to keep current customers using their product(s), but cost is a major issue. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: small)
We have stayed with Innovative and Millennium for nearly 15 years. The functionality of their product has served us well. However, Innovative is a very expensive ILS and we no longer feel like we can bear the annual costs. Features which we think ought to be offered as enhancements end up being expensive new modules that we have to purchase - usually with an additional increase to annual maintenance. Innovative would like us to move to Sierra but migration costs are also prohibitive. We feel like Innovative is pricing us out of being able to continue with their product. Innovative support has decreased dramatically. When you call the Help Desk you often have to leave a message instead of talking to a real person. Follow-up on open tickets can be slow. We had a major server crash and were down for nearly 4 1/2 days because Innovative personnel could not figure out the problem and was slow in shipping out replacement parts. Communication between the library and the customer sales rep is not always clear leading to misunderstandings which could be avoided. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Dissatisfaction with our current ILS vendor reached a tipping point this year when we could not implement an expensive module because our hardware was out of warranty, but still had to pay for the module anyway due to contractual language. We have a strategic initiative to investigate ILS alternatives. We are also strengthening our in house technology skills and building close relationships with campus IT. This could allow us to implement an open source ILS in the future. I would like to see our next ILS be built around the most accurate, complete e-resource knowledge base we can find, whether this means going open source or choosing a proprietary vendor. Within the next year or two we hope to reach a decision. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
The [...] may soon (1-2 years) have an opportunity to contract with a vendor for a statewide ILS offering. If this happens, many/most of the California community colleges would likely be migrating to the chosen vendor, including our college. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Encore is not as reliable as we would hope. From time to time the processes which import records and item status data from Millennium stall unexpectedly and need to be restarted. We may upgrade to Sierra, but from what we've seen, the back-end functionality is very similar to Millennium and not as up-to-date as we would like. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
While our current system is III's Millennium, we have signed a contract for Alma-Primo and are in the beginning stages of migration, with expected completion May 2016. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
Above figure represents both campus libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Support for Millennium is diminishing , we are now in the middle of a migration to Sierra and we expect improved support when we have completed the migration. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Innovative Interfaces is done. Wonder if EBSCO will buy them out? I have concerns about the venture capital company that own SirsiDynix and it doesn't appear ProQuest has a clue what to do with their Intota "product" or I should say enhanced Summons software. Seems like OCLC WMS is the only viable choice at the moment. It's interesting how the ILS industry has conflated in the last year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)
Bywater support for Koha is 25% that of Millennium with no huge license fee. Staff client also entirely browser based. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We're on Innovative's Millennium. It is a terrible, unfriendly, and outdated system that does almost nothing well. We're just now researching discovery layers. Summon is a frontrunner as it performed very well in our testing and has a decent reputation. EDS and Primo look OK. Encore was eliminated quickly as it performed poorly in our testing. OCLC is pushing Worldshare which makes us uncomfortable moving to their discovery layer while not being ready to migrate ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
We are migrating to Sierra within a year. The only reason we are doing this is not because III or Sierra is good, it's because there are no other viable alternatives. Pennsylvania's implementation of OpenILS is incredibly limited and development has been too slow for us to take SPARK seriously. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
The Library is currently involved in an RFP process to identify and select a new ILS platform. We are relatively happy with our current ILS, but we have also been with that vendor for about 20 years. That vendor has recently introduced their "next generation" product so a major change is inevitable in the not too distant future. There have been some significant developments in the ILS marketplace during the past few years. Most of the major vendors have introduced new platforms that are primarily cloud-based SAAS services. It seems like an appropriate time to review our ILS options in a more comprehensive manner. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We wish our ILS and discovery service did a better job of putting the same book and e-book next to each other in the browse list. All too often a print book will be listed several entries away for the electronic version of the same title. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Upgrade to the latest version of Millennium will improve the ratings given here. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
We get frustrated with Innovative Interfaces requirement to purchase add-on modules for functionality we think should come out of the box (i.e. mobile friendly interfaces, SMS alerts, etc.) (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
As a very specialized library, a discovery interface would only hinder our efforts to effectively serve our patrons. We have no interest whatsoever in obtaining one. (Library type: Music; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The biggest barrier to signing up for Sierra is cost. The upgrade is very expensive and would be largely invisible to users, though it would be beneficial to staff. The cost is very high for something that is almost totally behind the scenes. We currently have products related to discovery from several vendors. I would like to select a vendor and integrate some/all of these products (link resolver, ILS, A-Z list, ERM, etc.), but it's challenging to find both time and money to take on a project of that magnitude. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
I think academic medical libraries like us are in a spot regarding ILS; ILS is less important to us than to most other large academic libraries. Electronic resources are where we spend our collections budget and ILS , particularly older ILS like Millennium are not optimized for end user access to electronic resources. For the few books we buy and circulate, Millennium works OK, we know how it works for the most part and we've had it for so long it is second nature. For us, to implement (and even take the time to consider) product selection and migration is to shift our organizational focus at least temporarily to areas that are out of proportion with our library's day to day and strategic goals. Yet, due to aging ILS hardware we are grappling with these questions, and find ourselves wondering just how to stop everything else we are doing (for 4 months, or whatever) and just deal with this one issue. Although open source products like Koha could save us a lot of money, I think we acknowledge that end users' discovery of electronic resources is the most important consideration for us, and that is why we're looking very closely at Alma and Worldshare. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)
We have become very dissatisfied with the support service. Minor questions go unanswered, and larger problems take longer than they should to be resolved. Our library has been required to do much more follow up and elevating of problem status than should be necessary. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our ILS server is hosted through a third party organization. If it was hosted by the ILS company or brought back to campus, the outlook on customer support would likely be different. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The Innovative Interfaces should be more concerned about their customers in Taiwan. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Currently waiting on an investigation of local consortia that is looking into next generation library systems. Will move forward on new system investigation once that is completed. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We like the Intota ERM and knowledge base for eperiodicals. World share seems better for ebooks. Assessment is better by OCLC Intota is behind in dealing with acquisitions and reserves. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
For the most part we, at this library, are very satisfied with Millennium and with Innovative. However, we are part of a larger [...] higher ed. consortium of public institutions and we issued an RFP for a shared new system among the 17 libraries. The consensus was that ExLibris Alma/Primo was a more technologically advanced (true multi-tenant architecture, etc.) product and that resulted in a decision to go with Ex Libris. It remains to be seen if this was a good decision or not. Implementation has not yet begun and I anticipate that it will be complicated. I also hope that from the patron perspective it will work well. I believe the IT concerns drove the decision. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
It doesn't look like there are a lot of choices for a new ILS. The book circulation in our library has dropped significantly in the recent year. The new generation of ILS cannot be a system that is only good at managing print resources. I am concerned that the cost of commercial products will keep increasing. I am hoping that open source ILS can eventually manage both print and electronic resources well. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)
Migration to our vendor's new platform is desired but not likely within the next year. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our collection in Millennium is over 300,000 records because we have loaded MARC records for Ebsco ebooks, Films on Demand streaming videos, etc. The 75,000 number is accurate for physical holdings. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Because we are part of a consortium, we have not participated in an LMS vendor selection process. This will be conducted by [...]. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
Plan to migrate to Sierra soon. EDS very close to launch. Millennium impressions: WAM proxy rewrite need improvement. WebPAC not responsive. We also have Boopsie for mobile users. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We've been HAPPILY with Innovative from the early 1990's. Upgraded to Millennium early 2000's. But we're having a hard time justifying upgrading to Sierra which requires basically $40,000+ migration cost plus cost of a 2nd server. Those hosted servers would cost $17,000 yearly for starters. We already pay $40,000+ annually in "maintenance". That is a LOT. Soon paying $60,000. annually to stay III is feeling crazy and indefensible. Great business model for them, NOT for higher ed. that is inching towards unaffordableness/unsustainability. We need radically better pricing and something more rewarding than Sierra! Change may be painful but what doesn't kill us will make us stronger. ALSO: Hey Ebsco, merge with Innovative! THANKS MARSHALL! (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We consider migrating to a new ILS that can both meet our technological need and budget condition. Sierra is a bit too expensive for us as a small academic library. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Library has been with same vendor since 1994 - is looking to bring itself up-to-date as to the current state of the ILS and will be considering migration to another vendor system over the next 2 years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
We may not have a choice in migrating to Sierra, although I don't want to leave Millennium. (Library type: Law; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We cannot answer questions about customer support because we receive none, primarily because we no longer pay for customer support (for financial reasons). But even before we stopped paying for support, we were not happy with the product. We would like to migrate to something else, but again, financial considerations make that unlikely for the near future. (Library type: Museum; collection size: very small)
I enjoy my DIY catalog created using Google Sheets, but I wish there was a better, affordable, discovery service that was available for purchase, or that there were open source options that didn't require you to be highly adept at programming languages. Any suggestions would be amazing. Thanks. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are not automated. (Library type: Public; collection size: small)
We are still not automated and won't be in the near future. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small)
Our small library is doing quite well without automation. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 0)
not automated (Library type: Public; collection size: small)
We are not automated at this time. We still use cards and pockets and a stamp pad! (Library type: Public; collection size: small)
We are not yet fully automated so this survey is not relevant at this point. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)
We do not have an integrated system at this time, but may in the future. (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 0)
Our library now benefits from a union catalog of OPALS users that also belong to the Church and Synagogue Library Association. This union catalog, implemented in 2015, was provided at no additional cost by MediaFlex working with CSLA member librarians to determine details such as search priorities. Media Flex is currently working with CSLA libraries that use other software platforms to include them, at their request, in this union catalog. [...] Library is impressed and grateful for the "extra mile" work Media Flex put into making this catalog possible. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
[...] (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Re: functionality, OPALS does not have a serials module (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Already have open source system but to date we have not used the electronic resources component. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
good customer service when needed although not always quick to follow through with promised updates to program (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
OPALS support is excellent. They are very responsive to requests. Pricing (including hosting) is reasonable and affordable. We are very happy with the service and the product. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
It has been a rough start moving from one vendor to another, but OPALS is very responsive to its customers needs. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Not using electronic resources yet. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
As a small non-profit literacy program for at-risk children, this library system meets all our needs and then some. We also cannot say enough about the vendor (Bibliofiche) which over the years has provided an excellent service. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We just went officially online this week. I can't answer the questions now. (Library type: Synagogue; collection size: very small)
Mediaflex (OPALS) has been one of the best automation companies I've worked with in my 24 years in library. They are very responsive to their clients and are constantly improving their open source product. I am very happy working with Mediaflex. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS is a great value as it has the features of a next-generation OPAC and low-cost hosting and support. MediaFlex is patient and responsive toward its customers. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
OPALS is open source software. Support has consistently been excellent. "5" rating for customer support reflects that there has been no change in past year. Ability to sort results of catalog searches and of most reports in multiple ways, while not adding to the complexity of the programs, is especially appreciated. Flexibility of Home Page design, and ability to create online "pathfinder" bibliographies of both library and non-library resources (including websites & uploaded PDF documents) are great features for libraries with limited or no access to their parent organization's websites. Customized webinar instruction on request is especially valuable. Electronic books in library's collection would benefit from easier-to-use display of content. Company is responsive to suggestions for product development. Minor changes are sometimes implemented almost immediately; major updates may take longer than we anticipate. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS is an open source product and has been very responsive to our needs. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Very helpful and courteous technical support staff. Converted and uploaded our existing data and provided Webex tutorials that helped us learn to use the system. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Migrating to this system was painless and well supported. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Items in the library's collection (5 000) has to be review we've just merged whit 3 other libraries on the [...]. The language is an issue here, OPALS being dubiously translate in French. Plus little can be trully configured Above these points OPALS system is a stong mechanism. Il works very well for what it's supposed to do. The administration is very simple, clear and fast. And in 2 years we had no technical issue at all. Once that been said i think it won't pass the criterias of the new merged libraries group. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Although OPALS is an open-source system, we purchased it from a company (Mediaflex), and that company provides us with technical support. We are very happy with their technical support services. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our needs are rather minimal, and this system meets them well. We migrated from Horizon, which I, as the systems administrator, really liked. However, our schools never really used anything more than check in and check out, and I had to do run all the reports. OPALS lets individual sites do what they want to do. I do wish it were a real union catalog as that would make my life easier and data more consistent. However, there are things I like a lot: the user interface, circulation, bibliographies. And I do wish it were more customizable for the back end. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I am very happy with the vendor. The tech support is excellent. They are always there to answer questions and provide answers and webinars. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I researched library cataloging software for nine months before selecting OPALS. I found that OPALS met or exceeded the standards of the very best systems at a fraction of the price. In addition to offering a superior product, we have found that the staff at OPALS is the most helpful, friendly, and courteous group of people I have ever worked with in any setting. We could not be happier! (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Have used OPALS for 9 years. Their support team is competent and courteous. Regular, multiple annual updates enable us to handle changing information resource formats without having to look for new or third party software. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Ours was a new library and collection. We received outstanding setup and configuration services as well as effective tutoring from their librarian-instructors. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are pleased with OPALS for our smLl church library collection. (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
OPALS is an excellent ILS which, because it's Open Source, is constantly improving based on customer needs and requests. There are still areas where the OPALS ILS is lacking (particularly tracking of digital devices and technology equipment), but these functions are being developed and improved over time. The customer service/user training aspect of OPALS is very good and highly responsive. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS customer service is above and beyond. If your library has a specific need, they respond with a unique solution and in a timely fashion. The system is so intuitive. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our OPALS Union catalog is fairly new. My member schools are still in the process of uploading records and learning how to use the resource. However, I am very happy with the support we have received from the company. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Support services from OPALS are THE BEST this longstanding librarian has ever experienced from any vendor, ILS or any other resource. Development work seems to be slowing down, and we would recommend they charge more to increase development. A basic serials and acquisitions system would be welcome, for example. Still, this is a great company and ILS, and we would highly recommend them, particularly for their commitment to service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Students are liking the new catalog and being able to write their own reviews. Thrilled that I can catalog in Hebrew and the searching ability with each of the catalogs of MARC records is excellent. Books that I would not even dream of finding with our former program now appear in the catalogs that OPALS works with. OPALS is a dream come true after years of using Athena, Follett, and AlliancePlus. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
There are little glitches in the program periodically that we discover at the time of data input or later. If it is later, sometimes it is hard to track back the circulation mistake. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Very happy with our current system. Would love more graphic options, but happy with what has been provided to date. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Would like to be able to include our own database subscriptions links on the home page. OPALS works very well for us and the support is terrific. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
I love OPALS. It is not only our online catalog, but also our library's website. It is a one-stop-shop which is what I like. I also like that if I have questions, concerns, or suggestions, the people that are in charge of OPALS take my thoughts into consideration. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I love OPALS and especially the customer service component and the reasonable cost. The free state sponsored service is clumsy and the commercial products are costly. I will never switch from OPALS. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Question 7: This is our first year using OPALS. Support is outstanding to date, but cannot determine if this is "better or worse than the previous year" (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We love OPALS. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Great service! I am very please with OPALS and would highly suggest it to other librarians. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS has just developed its self-service module, but I haven't had a chance to mount it yet. It is a very important missing piece. It wasn't much trouble working around the problem, because of the nature of our library, but I think this could have been a significant problem for other libraries. I had problems at first with the label printing part of the system. The set up is not really under my control and it has problems with different browsers and printers at different times. For the most part this has been dealt with well by the vendor, but I'm still a little mystified as to why I don't have more control. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We cannot evaluate the program's digital resource management capabilities. This is an early childhood education institution that promotes early childhood literacy and that does not use digital resources. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
My high school has been using OPALS for 6 years and we love it. The lower school librarian (K-8) also switched to OPALS. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
As new Head Librarian at the [...] Children's Library and first-time user of OPALS open source library system, I am very impressed. OPALS is and excellent system, and the service and care I have received from Bibliofiche is outstanding. I recommend Bibliofiche and OPALS to other Librarians. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS has been a fantastic company to work with. They have always been so receptive to suggestions and queries from our library consortium, and they bend over backwards to try to improve those experiences, based on customer suggestion and feedback. As a spouse of an IT professional, I understand a little bit how the programming world works, and know that minor issues can crop up from time to time as programming continues to be updated and streamlined. OPALS works quickly and efficiently to correct issues that crop up, and their turnaround time is usually very brief compared to other, larger companies. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our library does not and will not manage eBooks, so we cannot answer that question. The system has an eBook management utility but we cannot assess it for the survey. In addition, this is our first year using OPALS and while service has been very good, we cannot compare our experiences with the past. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
OPALS has always been responsive to our needs. Their technical support is great! Sometimes we will suggest an improvement, and they agree to it, but it doesn't always get done, there isn't always follow through. Overall, they have been a good company for us and I would recommend them. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Re: Improved service question. This is our first year. Service is excellent but cannot say how this compares with previous years yet. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
It has been a pleasure to work with OPALS and their professional support staff again this year. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Have known, used and appreciated technology supported and developed by this group for decades. Their gold standard services made choosing this open source ILS an easy decision. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I appreciate the OPALS/MediaFlex/Bibliofiche team very much! They are terrific to work with, and it is ideal that they not only improve the product, but also automatically install those updates. This is an affordable means for us to serve our patrons, even though we are in a unique situation. Love the flexibility of the team! (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We do not manage eBooks yet, but will use OPALS' eBook management technology when we do. We cannot comment on how effective that module is at this time. Anticipating it will be as great as the rest of the program we use (Library type: Synagogue; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This is our eighth year using OPALS. The program has been updated several times each year and evolves to meet our changing needs. Technical support continues to be competent and courteous. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
As of December 2015, our library includes 823 eBooks, 9723 pdf format eBooks and studies and 1878 printed books. The balance of resources are miscellaneous formats. Most of these resources are in Arabic followed by English and the system has managed these diverse materials and formats very well. This is just one of several hundred [...] libraries where we use this open source system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
No electronic resources in this library yet. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Started using OPALS in December 2015. Transition from our previous ILS almost seamless. We do not manage eBooks at this time and cannot comment on previous year's services. What we have experienced so far is excellent and have recommended the system to another synagogue in our area. (Library type: Synagogue; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have used OPALS for 3 full years and have been perfectly satisfied. Each year brings system additions and improvements that we find helpful. Technical support is seldom needed, but always quick and effective when we do need it. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We started using this system in 2008. Are very pleased with the system and technical support. Another library in our district will adopt OPALS this year. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our library has very few E-Books. We will use the system's E-Book management functions when we do. (Library type: Synagogue; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Great customer service and support they are always willing to investigate new ideas or useful changes/updates. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our library does not have many electronic resources. We did not rank OPALS' electronic resource management application. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
1st year using OPALS. We love our new system and its support staff. Cannot compare with past years so we did not click a rating for that. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
System used since 2010; service and software is great. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The question has the service gotten better or worse in the past year leaves no option for remained the same. The service is already excellent. I don't believe it can get better. That's why I rated it a 5. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
This system has worked so well for libraries in our district. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We could not rank the quality of service comparisons with previous years. We just switched systems in May 2015. The transition from our previous system was remarkably easy. Their tutoring enabled us to use the system almost immediately. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Program updates adapt to changes we need, without incurring new costs. Customer service is still outstanding... glad that does not change. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our ninth year and still happy! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
It is exciting to be apart of a company like OPALS that is always striving to improve and to stay in the forefront of emerging technology and ideas. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We appreciate the excellent support and service that we receive from OPALS. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Since we use an open source program off of the internet, most of the questions do not pertain to us. It does us a good job and is free which fits our budget. I do not know what companies that might have been involved in this system. We have not contract with anyone. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
New web based product looks an improvement on the current version, (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are currently in the process of migrating from one system to the other (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We would rather move to the open source systems, because we do not want to be dependent on some company who develops the system in their terms. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We should be implementing RFID tags in our library in 2016 (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Koha in January 2016 (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
The software continues to be updated, even to Win10. We hear the vendor is about to release a web-based product. We are interested. (Library type: Church; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The step from CDS ISIS to PMB has been spectacular, as we have books transactions statistics, we can know in detail the work done by each cataloguer. I can import records from an Excel spreadsheet and we have a powerful opac, custom fields and more. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Pleased with Polaris so far, but there are still areas that need more development--particularly Acquisitions, Systems Admin, and Reports. Customer service is not quite as good as expected. Several issues have taken much too long (weeks or months with no solution). (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are concerned that III will not maintain Polaris as a separate product. If Polaris is no longer offered, we are open to migrating to Evergreen or another open source product. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium)
I have not been pleased with Innovative merger with POLARIS. We had better customer service with POLARIS representatives compared to Innovative. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
While we still feel that Polaris is the best available product for us, we are very disappointed overall with the state of the industry. There are very few true "cloud" products out there and there seems to be no vision between ILS vendors and the necessary support of the wide variety of 3rd party products that libraries are using. The APIs from all the vendors tend to be read-only which limits our ability to extend the functionality of the system as well. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large)
We've had a great experience in our migration to Polaris this year. Innovative staff have been extremely responsive and professional. The system is much more powerful than our previous ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
The system works well overall, but a little more attention to detail would speed thing up substantially. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Polaris was made as a public library ILS. We only had it because we were in a multi-type consortium. We are moving to an academic library consortium and will be migrating to ExLibris by July 2016. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
New releases which are now 3 per year have new features which often seem poorly thought out and require enhancement requests to modify into a fully functional feature. Sometimes we have to utilize our users group enhancement process to hopefully fix what should have been considered a bug. Some new functionality that has been on the enhancement list for a decade is unfairly only being implemented in the new Leap interface leaving the majority of the libraries behind in capability. Makes us wonder if they are doing this to force customers to purchase the interface even though it is not a complete replacement for the Polaris Staff Client. Since III acquired Polaris the focus appears to be on revenue retention or enhancement rather than on quality product development. We miss the openness and honesty of Polaris the company. When we were selecting our new ILS back in 2004, we eliminated III because of the inherent revenue enhancing pricing structures they had built into their product line and their lack of a meaningful consortium commitment. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are part of [...]. All support, etc is through them so there are many questions that I cannot answer. (Library type: Public; collection size: small)
We're a Polaris customer. Polaris technical support has been excellent. Sales support has been mixed, and seems to depend on the personnel involved. I am disappointed but not surprised to see that the Polaris business model shows signs of being consumed by the III model, which always appears to be focused on new products developed for sale more than on continued development of legacy systems; but, to be fair, the Polaris 5.0 release did include some useful developments in the legacy system, so that may remain to be seen. Overall still very happy with the Polaris system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Polaris is intended more for public libraries. Price point was why it was selected for this institution. Polaris is not ideal for handling electronic resources and an academic ebooks. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)
These answers reflect our experience while Polaris was still independent. We are still waiting to see how things are going forward with Innovative as the new owner. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Although we are happy with Polaris as our ILS product, we have seen a marked decline in service since Polaris Library Systems was acquired by III. Our site manager is excellent (a former Polaris employee), but other areas of customer service are lacking. Of particular concern is the financial aspect, especially invoicing. Last year we had to go through quite a lot to get the invoice for our annual maintenance. That is rapidly approaching, but I don't have much confidence that III has successfully merged the billing systems of III, Polaris and VTLS. As a result, I will be contacting III to make sure my invoice is generated so my maintenance contract doesn't expire. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Since the merger with III, Polaris support has been waning. It took months to receive the yearly invoice this year and when it was received the library had to ask for a detailed invoice. We spent more than a month trying to find out what our maintenance fees were and then met a roadblock when trying to cancel specific licenses. III has not been good for Polaris. A once strong ILS is now mediocre due to lack of transparency and communication with its community. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Last year the company was sold to III and for about 8 months the customer service was less than ideal. They were very slow in responding to requests for quotes or information on adding products! Obviously they were in a long transition period. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
After Innovative purchased Polaris we were concerned our support might erode. Thus far, our excellent Polaris customer support has been maintained. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are more likely to move to Open Source if Innovative costs go up or if they stop full support of Polaris. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have had the following issues since III purchased Polaris: contracts and billing - III is slow to respond - it's difficult to know who is handling questions. The annual support costs have risen sharply and are forecasted to continue to rise at more than the increases with Polaris Library Systems. The lack of product documentation and unwillingnesss to share structural table information makes the ILS less useful - there is less information for the customer. The product development is off -schedule and III is more interested in developing LEAP than the full ILS - this will be a problem in the future if III wants to remain competitive. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Support from Polaris customer service is very good. Billing, maintenance contract, etc., through the III California office has been difficult and not timely. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Product is okay. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Most of our focus this past year has been on attempting to integrate all the functions of our RFID system with our ILS. Since SIP2 is the connecting interface, we have had some struggles getting the two systems to work together. A discovery interface is a "wish list" item for us right now, but of all the things listed on the survey, this is the most interesting to us. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Polaris is the only system I hope I ever have to use. When we selected Polaris we had a group of 30+ librarians who went to several different libraries and saw different systems. We also attended several vendor demos. We all voted at the end which one we liked the best. All but one person voted for Polaris. That person did not have the opportunity to see Polaris. The product is superior. The upgrades are well thought out, regular and welcomed. Polaris is very pro-library and listens to our needs. We don't fit them, they fit us! I can't say enough good things about Polaris. I would suggest that anyone who is ever looking for a new ILL takes a hard look at Polaris. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Even with the acquisition by iii we have been happy working with Polaris. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
We were happier with our ILS support before they were purchased by another company. The software product is good, but could use improvements in the areas of eContent, Mobile design and the ability to customize the staff client. Our day to day customer service is good, but billing has been an ongoing issue. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We still love the product, but customer service is challenging. It isn't as good as when Polaris was a standalone. We have had trouble getting itemized bills. Have had to go up the ladder to old Polaris contacts to get results from the III billing dept. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
The computer support for the ILS is excellent. Great and knowledgeable people. However, billing and new products is a nightmare. Part of it probably has to do with the acquisition and the management of three completely different products. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
I'm less than thrilled that Polaris was acquired by Innovative, and from what I've seen so far I don't think I'm wrong in this. Of course, the jury is still out and I'll have to see what happens but I've never had a favorable experience with Innovative in the past and unless their culture changes to be more like the Polaris culture of customer service it might become a problem for us in the future. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Since III acquired Polaris in April 2015, we have seen a decided decline in the customer service function. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have had Polaris since 2005. In 2014 Polaris was bought by Innovative Interfaces. Not that Polaris was phenomenal before, but at least we got our invoices on time. Our Site Manager is awesome, but other than that, customer service and support has gotten worse since the purchase. According to the listserve response after the news broke, this was predicted to happen. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Lower scores for support questions reflect change as result of Polaris takeover by Innovative. Merger has not resulted in gains/better support. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
The change in company satisfaction is a reflection of the buyout of Polaris by Innovative Interfaces. The transition hasn't been very seamless on the administrative and billing side. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
While we have seen the customer service and enhancement response decrease since the merger we still remain satisfied with the company and the software. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
5 mil items currently in ILS, many more not in system (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
With the recent acquisition of Polaris by II, the Fusion digital product may not be supported in the future. We hope it is since we purchased it. We also wonder what the future holds for Polaris since its purchase by III. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
NB for question 5: We acquired our current ILS from Polaris Library Systems, but our current ILS company is Innovative Interfaces. Our satisfaction with the former is a 9; with the latter, at best a 7. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We contract with [...] and they handle all our support. I have no contact with our ILS vendor but am very happy with it and the way it functions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
There has been some dissatisfaction with speed of trouble tickets and orders for products. That given, we are aware the the trouble is probably due to the inherent problems that exist when once company's data and methodologies are being incorporated into a new parent company. Next year after things level out, the assessment we make may prove to be better, though as you might notice, we have no truly serious complaints. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
N (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Because we share our system with 24 other libraries, we have difficulty getting our catalog records into EDS. I'm looking at WorldCat Discovery as a possible alternative. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Most R&D advances are now in LEAP, not the standard Polaris product - very disheartening even though Polaris/Innovative promised to continue to support and grow the main product. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
This is one branch of a city-wide library system which includes 295000 items in its total collection. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are very happy with the system we have at this time (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
As we begin the migration process from Polaris to Sirsi, I think we are seeing that Polaris offers more functionality than Sirsi for the staff. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I answered the questions in regard to our library and Polaris, not the consortia in which we participate. I believe the answers to these questions would most likely be different if answered by the consortia. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
My library and one other library joined our consortium on the ILS three years after implementation for the rest of the county libraries. It is my understanding that the initial implementation went reasonably well, my implementation, however, was a very bumpy ride with many delays on the part of the vendor. There were moments when I considered the possibility of calling the whole thing off. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We will migrate to the state-wide system NC Cardinal in mid-May 2016. This decision was not made lightly. We have had a wonderful relationship with Polaris, and before that, Gaylord. Two factors dominate our choice to change vendors: the ability to empower our patrons with greater access to materials throughout the state; and the sale of Polaris to a company that has its base in academic libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are planning to return to our [...] in 2016, not due to any dissatisfaction with Polaris, but due to financial incentives and delivery improvements. Our current ILS, RiverShare, has a split delivery scheme which has proven very inadequate due to its bi-state nature and other factors. Also, [...] provides a fully-staffed central site, whereas [...] is member-operated. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Polaris post-III merger feels a lot like SirsiDynix, which was not a pleasant customer experience. It remains to be seen whether they will learn from SirsiDynix's mistakes or repeat them, but I get less optimistic as time passes. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium)
We're really happy with our switch from Sirsi-Dynix to Polaris. We would never go back. Customer support with Polaris is greatly improved. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Polaris is alright for the most part. We have trouble searching materials. It is not the easiest to search. It would be nice if you can start typing a title and the letters start coming up, like Amazon.com does. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
In regards to the ILS customer service, the [...] contacts staff at the [...] when there are problems. The problems that we often face are server related. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
I can't really answer some of these questions--they would be better directed to Harrison Regional Library. I have zero contact with Polaris customer service and do not know if the terms of the contract were honored or if timing was renegotiated and when, etc. Please add a N/A field for libraries in systems in the future. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
The Polaris ILS works well for us and the Polaris tech support is excellent. They are friendly, helpful and responsive. They are all part of the former Polaris Library Systems crew where customer service ruled. However any dealings we have with Innovative Interfaces for billing and hardware has been frustrating, difficult and slow. Instead of annual bills being generated by III, we have had to request them to get them paid by the end of the year. Then it takes months to get through the quote, invoice, purchase order process. It is unacceptable and shows a general disregard for the customer. This is so different from our experience with Polaris Library Systems before the buyout. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Not completely thrilled about the Innovative/Polaris combo, but will wait and see if things get better before deciding whether to consider migrating. Since ours is a small library open source is not an option since I can't devote a whole employee to the task of making sure it runs right...plus afford the salary of someone who has the ability/knowledge. It is tempting, but... Not sure about the discovery interface layer... (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The Polaris system is a good ILS and support is second to none. III does fall short in the area of billing. This is the second year we have had to beg the company to let us pay them for our maintenance contract. Other libraries have expressed the same frustration. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our library is medium-sized. It is a difficult challenge to find an ILS that matches our needs and budget. There don't seem to be many ILS choices in the marketplace for medium-sized libraries. Systems are either large and robust enough for large, city libraries with branches or university libraries, or small systems for small public libraries or school libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
After Polaris was purchased by III, customer service has not been the same, but less. We are waiting to see what III/Polaris does with their web based "LEAP" but are weary due to them not wishing to complete the cataloging module until the end. If LEAP turns out to be less than expected, we will move to another ILS--probably go with Auto-Graphics. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have only been using it since spring but it seems to be very user friendly. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I think customer service has been negatively impacted by the III acquisition particularly in the sales dept., but hopefully that is getting better. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We're happy with Polaris, but we're interested in a web-based ILS going forward and are always in the process of evaluating our current platform. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are very pleased with our current product. Though there are concerns about many changes due to the company being bought out. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We moved to Polaris from Sierra this year. Polaris has superior customer service and support compared to its parent company, and we dearly hope it remains as separate as possible. Also, the Polaris development team run circles around III's - they keep adding features on a very rapid schedule without breaking existing functionality. Very pleased with this move. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Customer service has not been as responsive since Polaris was sold to III. Overall though, we are still very pleased with the product. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our ILS is managed by the [...]. They know much more about the migration process to the current ILS than we do. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are, of course, a little concerned with Innovative's acquisition of Polaris. That having been said, since the acquisition, Polaris product development is continuing and improvements are being made to the software. We are keeping a close watch on the situation but have no current plans to explore other options. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Polaris was taken over by III and the CEO of III has left in the last year. While we have not seen a change in our customer service, I have some concerns about the current company. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have many concerns about Innovative as a company, including recent change in leadership, especially the loss of Jodi Belinger and how that might affect customer support and the move to put someone from the global equity firm with no library background in as interim CEO. Jodi was credited with Polaris' good customer support reputation and was supposed to help bring that reputation to the other Innovative platforms. We aren't seeing that. Billing seems to be a problem. Innovative doesn't know what we owe them when. They keep inquiring with us what we think we owe even though the amount and billing schedule is clear in our contract. Individuals within the company don't seem to talk to each other. We keep changing sales and customer support reps as the company sees turnover. In terms of support, we often get vague answers and sometimes tickets that were supposed to be fixed upon upgrade turn out to be complete misunderstandings of the problem at hand vs the change log for the product. We have initiated many, many enhancement requests that I feel are really bug fixes. We are still frustrated with the product documentation and from a SA perspective, determining where inheritance lies. There are some new pieces of functionality that we are pleased with, though overall, there seems to always be a catch when new functionality is introduced, making it impractical to use such as the new sql job to suppress certain records in the PAC. It's an all or nothing job with now manual override other than keeping a record set and manually undoing the process for those records daily. just an example. This system also does not manage holds as well as our last system, even after a year of tweaking. Still no ADA accessible PAC. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
While Polaris is a much better system than what we had. There are some aspects that are cumbersome and it still has glitches. It is frustrating when there are new updates when previous issues have not been addressed and still linger. It is also aggravating that as the largest consortium in North America we only have one vote and some of the database changes proposed are ridiculous for our type of consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We're under contract to migrate to SirsiDynix in March (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
A number of these questions were unaswerable because we get our A number of these questions were unaswerable because we get our Polis through our Regional Library System through our Regional Library System (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have been very happy with Polaris as a vendor, we made a very conscious decision to go with them over their competitors and are still in wait and see mode whether their responsiveness and level of customer service will remain consistent now that they are owned by Innovative Interfaces Inc. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Expect to purchase a lap top computer (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
As I have recently been named CEO my answers may not reflect an accurate response for 2015. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
none (Library type: ; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] (Library type: Church; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Sebina is managed by Data Management an italian company. We are quite satisfied with these guys because they are collaborative and fast in resolving problems. We are waiting for a new release more 2.0 fashioned and some new features related to re-use of Open Data. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
En la Bibloteca se maneja el sistema AIDA (Library type: Public; collection size: very small)
en estos momentos el equipo esta desavilitado por daños (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)
Nuestra biblioteca depende del main campus, en [...] . Son ellos quienes toman las decisiones respecto del SIGB. Este año les hemos preguntado al respecto y estas fueron sus respuestas: "... we are living in interesting times and developments regarding library business but so far we have been mainly following and evaluating these developments and are not planning to migrate to any cloud-based library management systems in any foreseeable future. BIBFRAME is also something we're watching closely as things progress but we have no concrete plans regarding BIBFRAME at this time, other than continuing educating ourselves" (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our migration was abysmal. Because of that, many issues linger. It is hard to tell which are limitations of Sierra and which are limitations based on how poorly our data came over. We feel that the sales team misrepresented the product as completely adaptable for consortium use, and repeatedly told us that everything they were showing us was included. They failed to mention that almost every consortial adaptation comes with an additional cost. Also, we have a hosted solution. Slow speed and recurring downtime are real problems. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
OCLC WorldShare is becoming a very robust product that will allow for resource sharing at all levels, such as circulation, ILL, and also knowledge base, vendors, analytical reports, and repositories and special collections (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
I'm getting more concerned with the direction of Innovative after the recent departure of Kim Massana. People on the IUG list have commented on the decline in customer service responsiveness. I hope they can steady the ship. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The claims of full integration with our corporate systems seem to have been somewhat lacking. 18 months on and nothing has been integrated yet. They do use API's but as these are mainly read only are of limited use. The system includes an inbuilt ERM - but there are no links in the records to any of the e-resources! Who ever thought that a system that looks after e-resources does not consider linking out to them sensible! Fines payment on our self check does not work the way we asked (it did with our previous vendor). Holds do not work in a way we like and ILL seems positively backward! Could go on a bit more but you have probably got the jist that as the Systems Librarian - I am not impressed. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)
III's customer service has fallen below acceptable levels, and the system's total cost of ownership has become hard to justify. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)
for Discover - we have Summon- yet considering others. For III other than opening support center in Dublin IRE little if anything is better. Sierra is still mostly just a tan Millennium. Nothing since the Sierra advent from the old charcater based system has ported over as it was suppose to over time. New releases are really only about stabilizing old with very little NEW or better anything. On the positive side Sierra 2.0 SP3 does appear more stable (1 week old) than previous releases. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We had to upgrade to Sierra as a consortia.There are duplicate bar codes and 10 digit bar codes still in use in the consoria. That limited our choice. Open Source was discussed by the state library commission tech but not much was shared. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
After purchasing Polaris and VTLS Innovative has fallen apart. Customer Service has been non-existent outside of a small handful of especially good staff. There were 3 releases in a row we were unable to install due to system critical bugs introduced in those releases. There has appeared to be a mass exodus of talent from the company, including many who have worked for the company for years, taking their institutional knowledge with them. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
Our consortium does a good job of responding to all of the customer libraries. However, being part of the consortium makes assessing Sierra somewhat unfair. As a stand alone the product would likely be much more closely aligned to our needs. However, the consortium is more cost effective. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are in a 5 year contract with iii but are watching what is happening with [...] as they are in the process of creating a RFP for a new ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Innovative's customer support has declined significantly, in my opinion, since they acquired Polaris and Virtua. Tickets frequently disappear into the ether or languish for months, even years if not followed up on by library (me). Also, we have not been totally satisfied with the functionality of their Encore discovery layer and the Synergy product in particular. From demos of other vendors' products, Innovative's development of discovery and library services platforms is lagging behind. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
Regarding the "on schedule" question, the core functionality was ready on time, but some customizations and add-ons that Innovative promised after implementation are still not ready for production 17 months later. Overall, I'm happy with them, but they did oversell it. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are pleased with the customer service we get through our consortium, but very disappointed with Innovative's response to contract issues that have not been resolved. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
[..] (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have now been on III's Sierra product for about a year. In general, I would say staff and patrons are relatively happy with it. Encore is a huge improvement over HIP in most situations. From the staff perspective the biggest complaints center around holds and notices. Both seem buggy and the work flow is inefficient. On the plus side, the ability to copy and paste and have longer comments is greatly appreciated. To our surprise, Sierra does not handle a consortium, or quasi-consortium, environment particularly well. The loan rule table and notice options are limited compared to the options we had in Horizon. The back end is a mess. Data is stored in 2 different DBMS, on different servers, as well as in flat files. In addition, the database structure is terrible. I hope that as Sierra continues to move away from Millennium this will improve but it will be a slow process. III claims to be an "open library" experience. I don't know what they're talking about. Yes, they have APIs but they're very limited. The default database access is only for SQL views and is limited to 5 connections at a time. Libraries aren't even allowed select only access to the base tables. Not all database/tables are represented in the views. Regarding support: Support is very fast if you ask a question that fits within their paradigm. Otherwise, it's extremely slow. We have several tickets that have been open since we implemented. Follow-up questions I ask regarding these tickets get sent to a black hole. III never warns us before they get on the server which makes it hard to pinpoint when a change they made may have negatively impacted a related area. III does not appear to have any interest in setting up meetings to discuss the problems in detail, to make sure they understand the problem, and then come up with a plan of attack. I would suggest they train their staff on have to conduct a reference interview. We try to be clear in our tickets but we're obviously coming from a very different background than their techs. Regarding our contract. The majority of the implementation was done on time. However, there is one component we feel is major that was in the contract and has yet to be implemented. From what we can figure out, III does not know how to implement it. If we had known this ahead of time it probably would have swung the IT vote to Polaris (though in retrospect we're happy we didn't choose a product that III then later bought). (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
At times, I think that support has improved, but then we come across a larger problem that is not fixed in a timely manner. Recently, we had an issue that went on for over five weeks. When we finally narrowed down the issue, the staff we were working with did not know where the change needed to be made in the system and it took almost another week for the setting to be changed. On simpler issues, tech support is great. And it has improved because of additional staff and offices. But there is still an issue. We just had our account representative visit us for the first time in almost three years. He seemed genuine and apologetic and explained there is restructuring and he just started as our rep in the beginning of the year. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Since this library is part of a consortium we would particpate in whatever system the consortium would migrate to. It is not fiscally feasible at this time to migrate to another system, open or otherwise, without the support of a consortium. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The purchase of Innovative Interfaces by equity companies has seen an overall decline in customer service here in Canada, which is unfortunate since there are many customers in this country. The support from the Help Desk is uneven and response time to emails and phone calls, well often not at all. We are replacing Encore with Summon, dropping WebBridge, PathFinderPro, materials bookings and Interlibrary loan modules. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
These types of decisions are made by our consortium through [...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Since the internationalization of the non-US libraries III sales and support has become scattered and often difficult to deal with - lack of coordinated efforts and clear points of contact. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)
Sierra/Encore is incapable of handling a 'New-England style' consortia where adjacent public libraries have widely differing governance structures, loan policies, and financial support. Its primitive database and software consider all items from all libraries to be one combined interchangeable collection. Innovative's cloud-based product has frequent (near-weekly) outages. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)
We have not been very happy with the way things have been going at III. While the tech support received is good (when you get someone), the pricing and the lack of development accorded to their existing products is abysmal. They seem to roll out half-baked products and then don't improve (see AirPAC). Then instead of improving what you already paid too much money for (for what you get), they instead roll out a new, supposedly improved product (MyLibrary!) and want you to pay again for that product. When it's time to upgrade or migrate (when our servers are coming end-of-life), we will look at other vendors. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Although the company still provides an excellent product and customer service, changes in management without direct notification to the customers does have our library a bit concerned. It's definitely a different company than the one that we knew even five years ago. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Sierra has been plagued with bugs since our go live date 3 years ago. We can't upgrade the product because of big problems in the system. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)
Innovative seems to be struggling since being purchased by a investment company. They don't seem to be very innovative during the past five years. They need to step up their game plan. We are interested in Hydra in a Box. We hope that it won't require a lot of programming staff to implement it and keep it running. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
we will be changing our link resolver from SFX but do not have a product in mind at this point (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
While customer service has greatly improved over the last year it is still spotty with some simple tickets remaining open for months.... (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Encore Duet has been very problematic. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Other departments in my institution are implementing content management systems designed for the museum field. Innovative Interfaces, as well as the [...] (our new service provider) compares very favorably on scheduling and meeting deadlines for data migration/ implementation. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Innovative's customer support and ability to solve issues was already bad and continues to get worse, installing Service Packs has a strong chance of breaking functions that were working, lack of knowledge of how functions are supposed to work due to so many employees quitting or being let go (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 1)
We migrated from Millennium to Sierra this year. The migration went very smoothly. The Innovative support team was very helpful and responsive during the migration. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Version of Sierra we are currently on is stable and we've had fewer issues with the software in the past year. Concerned about continued fallout of big acquisitions and how this continues to impact how the company operates. Support ratings mostly reflect our dissatisfaction with support for Encore and ongoing difficulties with online ticketing system. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are one member of a consortium that shares an ILS. We have been very unhappy with Innovative since implementation. Slow and poor response to our issues from day one, only now actually being addressed once we took legal action to address contractual performance issues. I hope I'll have better things to say next year. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
The questions re ILS functionality & satisfaction give pause for thought! Some services which were previously undertaken within the ILS are now migrated to separate products (e.g. Talis Aspire Reading Lists replacing Sierra Course Reserves; Image Management system replacing the Sierra Media Management component). So any possible increase in functionality & satisfaction scores could be because the aspects which the system handled less well are now handled elsewhere. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Have to prompt support staff to follow up on tickets more than i'd like, and sometimes feel like they aren't the greatest communicators. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I think that Innovative Interfaces who we just migrated to in July 2014 lacks quality support and training mechanisms. Questions linger for days, or even weeks, and the resolutions are seldom adequate. The best thing about III is the access to views of the SQL tables, but it is unclear to me why III does not open access to all tables and provide read/write access. APIs are being added to the product, but SQL access is much preferred. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 1)
Innovative does not meet the needs of a law library. It cannot work with major legal publishers that provide 75% of our materials. It does not aggressively offer open-source access to data that would allow it to work with other products. Support and sales are arrogant and dismissive of individual library needs. Move to vc funding has given the company a sense of worldliness and self-importance that is not appealing to the library world. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Since being taken over by the investment group, Innovative has steadily gone downhill. Innovation is no longer present, customer service is non-existent (every problem is either a software issue and it does not get resolved) and every new feature is a service with 3 year commitments at high prices. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
Overall, we feel that III is really struggling to remain relevant. It must be challenging to maintain a huge number of legacy systems while trying to take small steps ahead with products like MyiLibrary, Mobile Worklists, and their partnership with EBSCO to build some sort of new knowledge base. When you look at products like Alma, WMS, and Intota that seemed to be designed more around real workflows, offer more contemporary web interfaces, and have powerful business intelligence software to help libraries gain insight into the usage of their collections, Sierra just looks...well...slow and old. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are very disappointed in the direction Innovative Interfaces has taken since being bought by private equity. There seems to be a lack of focus on where the company is headed and very little development of Sierra and other existing products. They are not delivering on the promises they made when launching Sierra. They made lots of promises to get us to migrate, but we have little return on our investment. Customer service has gotten very poor. Some tickets remain open for months and need to be escalated. Even then, we get shuffled around. No one seems to know how to help. Innovative seems to have little interest in retaining its customers. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Sierra is not perfect and was over-hyped but there is nothing better at the moment. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Negative comments:
III are an extremely professional company, offering good solid support to customers. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Some here questioning whether Sierra offers the full benefits of a true LSP but switching systems is by no means certain given how embedded the system in our current infrastructure. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
III support from help desk staff has deteriorated and at best is inconsistent. III product documentation does not contain the details necessary to promote client independence in problem resolution and in some cases is inaccurate. Sierra functionality continues to feel like using a 1990's ILS with limited integration. Very disappointing to have to operate in antiquarian system when technology in general has advanced so rapidly in the last decade. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
[...] is part of the [...] Consortium. The Consortium is actively considering a move to a new ILS/Discovery platform, due to dissatisfaction with support for Encore EDS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Sierra users have their own listserv and conference to address issues and concerns from other users because of the lack of efficient help from Innovative. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
As someone who works on a reference desk for most of the day, the search feature of Sierra really leaves a lot to be desired. Simply functions like putting multiple items on hold without have to perform the search multiple times, or a patron keyword search are either non existent or require acrobatics. Also, the system is SO static. If I'm looking at a checked out item record, why can I just click on the patron whose checked it out and open up their patron record. No, I have to copy their name and go back to change to a patron search and then paste the patron name. I truly miss Polaris. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
We are extremely disappointed with Innovative. They sold us on their vision of Sierra, which is great, but in practice, it does not deliver. There are many workflows that do not make sense, and many seemingly small tweaks that would greatly improve the product. But many of these have been enhancement requests for years, and have never been addressed. It has numerous, sometimes "showstopping", bugs. Support is terrible, and development is excruciatingly slow. For example, one feature that influenced our decision to acquire was the scheduler product. It flat out does not work. I had a ticket open with support, and they kept trying to get me to run different test scenarios. After nearly a dozen different iterations of duplicating a problem, I had to tell them I did not have time to debug their product for them, and that this clearly belonged in software development, and NOT the helpdesk. I can't express how dramatic the effect of our migration has been. The comparison of how it works to Horizon is stark. Despite our efforts to manage change, staff morale has plummeted, and Sierra is the frequent butt of jokes and object of ridicule. We can't wait until our contract is up. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)
We have been continually frustrated by III's inability to quickly resolve some massive system-wide issues with checkins/checkouts, as well as problematic changes to the OPAC following Millennium-to-Sierra migration, and a product uninstaller for Sierra that actually doesn't clear all files from the computer (leading to many headaches when we've needed to reinstall, install a new version, etc.). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
I am not sure if I answered the questions correctly. We use iii's Sierra system through our consortium, [...]. We deal with [...] personnel, not the vendor directly. I answered the questions treating [...] as our "vendor". In our previous survey, we used KOHA, through ByWater solutions. I hope this makes sense. mve (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
Innovative support ranges from good on some requests, to poor or non-existent on other requests. Definitely not consistent. Software has slow response time, so workflow, especially in cataloging, has slowed considerably since implementation of this new system. Encore discovery is nice, but has some design flaws. Mobile version still connects to old version of patron online account, whereas the desktop version connects to a newer version of the patron online account. Doesn't provide a consistent user experience. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
This library has had III/Millenium/Sierra since 1990's. We have not kept up with the updates and it has not kept up with other companies. The tech support just is not there. It takes days to answer questions. Its usability as far as staff is a clunky nightmare. I moved from a Polaris library to here. I knew there was better out there. We will change if the board can be convinced. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
We have to go thru another library for ILS issues so that's why I didn't answer some of the questions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
The continued charging for "new products" that should be included as updates to existing products has soured us toward this company, as has the continued labeling of needed software changes that are really fixes as "enhancements". As is true with many discovery systems, the loss of the ability to display index-ordered search results, and to make use of cross-references, makes Encore less than optimal for use in an academic environment, and forces us to continue to offer access to the "classic catalog" along with the discovery system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
En general podemos estar satisfechos con la aplicación, pero creemos que los avances tecnológicos y los retos a abordar nos hacen ser más exigentes respecto al producto actual. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
I have the feeling that Innovative have had to spend so much time fixing bugs in Sierra it hasn't developed anything like as quickly as it should have, and Sierra is looking outdated as a result. Their persistence with a client/server architecture also now looks outdated. Our opinion of the company has gone down over the last few years, mostly due to bug problems and lack of development in Sierra. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
I feel like our vendor is more stretched out thin than ever as far as product support is concerned, probably because of focus on cloud-based development and recent purchases of other ILS products. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our upgrade decision is determined by the overall decision of our [...] consortium. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our recent migration from Millennium to Sierra was smooth and almost entirely painless. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Since we aren't large by the ILS provider's standards, they simply don't care that we've had a major, unresolved issue ever since migrating to the current circulation platform. It's hard to feel good about a company whose product has cost us patrons when, as far as we can tell, no one associated with that company is even concerned about it. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Esto es una aclaración a la pregunta de si etá considerando la biblioteca, actualmente migra a un nuevo SIGB. Estamos realizando una evaluación de las Plataformas de Servicios de Bibliotecas que existen actualmente en el mercado y por tanto evaluamos también Sierra, por lo que continuar con Sierra es también una alternativa. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Our migration to a new ILS, Sierra was very well handled and supported. This occurred last year in 2015. It the past 6 months, I've noticed that customer relations has generally decreased. Response times to changes, questions and issues is quite slow. The implementation team for the Discovery Layer was horrible. They seemed completely disinterested in assisting us with questions, or making timely changes to issues. As well, many issues were left unresolved when we were told our implementation was complete (many things still not working) and that we would have to finish our work by creating tickets through their help desk. A month later, many issues are still not resolved and we are many months behind in releasing the new discovery layer to staff and the public. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We did have Summon as our discovery system, but switched to EDS December 1, 2015. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
note - increase in item count - we now include e-resources. Innovative is woeful for customer service. Their product isnt Mac friendly. We havent yet implemented the latest release because of all the new problems it creates.... However, we don't see any other ILS out there that looks any better and we don't have the funding to make the switch anyway....sigh. Discovery - we've tried a few most recent - Encore - we were not impressed. We are Discovery free right now and beginning a study to see how impacts us if at all. We are very interested in the Ithaca white paper stance about Discovery. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The transition from TLC LS/LS2 Staff to Innovative's Sierra was rough in having to deal with slower load times and transaction times. Log in is often delayed by Javascript and its cache errors. Some functionality and simplicity were lost by comparison. Create Lists in Sierra is so far much more complex than TLC's Report Manager. Part of the disappointment in migrating to a "Cadilac" ILS is lack of familiarity with the product. The consortium tries to be liaison with III, but cannot be expected to know the ILS as much as the vendor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Innovation Interfaces Inc. honors the contract by resolving reported issues and forwarding open issues to software engineers. They release updates on targeted schedules, but the updates tend to break functions, as a result, we choose to remain on an older versions that continues to meet our basic needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are uncertain how well the recently-changed management of Innovative Interfaces Inc. knows the library community and needs; the direction of the firm seems unclear given its very large number of recent acquisitions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are in the process of migration to Sierra and have not been very satisfied with the work Innovative has done with the issues that have cropped up in the migration. Perhaps these answers will be different in a year. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)
Regarding the customer service issue, there are some wonderful, knowledgeable staff at iii. They need more of these people. The length of time that it currently takes to address non-emergency issues is becoming longer. It actually got better for a short time, but in the second half of 2015, I noticed a vast difference in turnaround time, and tickets continue to languish. The restructuring of Library Relations Manager regions has affected us greatly, and we have no one to go to as an advocate or support for us. Our sales rep was picking up the slack for the LRM, and this person has recently resigned. My two strongest points about this vendor: 1) Company needs to attract and retain good staff. Don't leave your customers languishing. 2) Company still needs to focus on better beta testing for bugs before releasing new products. We haven't upgraded our software in a year because of the known issues. We also purchased (from iii) an add-on for our discovery layer that iii can't get to work and hasn't addressed with us. They need more help in their software engineering area to program better products. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
The library recently underwent a migration from Voyager to Sierra, as part of a consortia decision, thus we do not have enough historical input to provide more than a mid-range answer to these questions. So far as implementation of agreed upon items - there has been some dispute over what was "sold" to us versus what we are receiving. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We had a rushed and very disappointing implementation as part of new national consortium. We have gone backwards in terms of cataloguing / adding items, notices to patrons (SMS is not available), integration with third party products - poor Patron API, SIP. Processes seem to take much longer. It has been a real challenge to make it work as a consortium of 6 library authorities and I wonder is it the right product for such a project (eventually will be 23 library authorities). Is it more suited to academic environment? (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
Sierra si basa su un database relazionale di tipo Open Source, anziché sul database Oracle (utilizzato per Millennium) che è di proprietà della ditta Oracle Corporation (con conseguente costo di manutenzione e supporto). E' possibile quindi accedere al database di Sierra utilizzando strumenti di reporting SQL di terze parti. Sierra è indicizzato attraverso Lucene (anch'esso Open Source). L'avvio delle funzioni in Sierra è leggermente più lento di quanto avveniva in Millennium, ma con Sierra scompaiono alcune limitazioni presenti in Millennium (es. Sierra offre un numero illimitato di licenze, rispetto a Millennium che offriva "50 licenze per lo staff" delle biblioteche: ciò si traduce nel fatto che non esiste più il limite massimo di 50 sessioni simultanee e che tutti i bibliotecari abilitati sul sistema possono lavorare simultaneamente). (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Here's hoping that the acquisition of Polaris by Innovative will improve customer service and product development. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Innovative Interfaces' customer service has declined steeply over the past year or so--we've experienced it, and other III customers have experienced it. We have spoken with III representatives about this and have received assurance that they're aware of it and are working to correct the problems. In general, we're a bit concerned about what direction III may be headed, with the customer service problems, the sudden departure of the CEO, and the fact that Sierra has been a bit of a let down. That said, having access to the database via SQL in Sierra has been a great help--we've been able to do many things with Sierra we couldn't do with Millennium. It makes me more interested in potentially adopting a fully open source ILS in the future, although that would be a big transition for us as an organization. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Many products, such as inventory, text messaging, OAI-harvested integration with Encore, holds, etc. continue to be sub-par for use by a multi-type consortium. Encore in particular is a good souped up "pac" but cannot compete with Summon or WorldCat; the webpac is ancient code and non-responsive design; and new additions for "mobile" continue to all be fraught with "This but not that" syndrome, making almost all public facing products unuseable. Company needs to put forward a single useful public product that works and refund money for all the multiple mobile and worklist and pac and web page and iterations of encore that are out there and focus on one that is useable by all with all functionality. So many stops and starts and sputters with these products and then none are usable. A real failure in my opinion. We also continue to use Intota Assessment with some reservation; while we continue to champion Summon and we'd be waifs without it, we do not yet see Intota's product line being able to be competition for Sierra. OCLC WDS/WMS does not also seem to be able to give us adequate print and electronic management tools, and with the acquisition of ExLibris and Polaris, there are few choices left for multi-types to look at? (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We were dissatisfied with the functionalities provided by Sierra, especially the integration between the ILS and the university's other enterprise systems. Therefore, we are in the process of migrating to Alma/Primo in hope that the new system provides users with better user experience with the library's resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
Transition to hosted Sierra was mainly smooth, but feel that III is becoming less responsive to queries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our vendor is mostly dealt with at the system level. I don't have a lot of interaction with the vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Of primary interest to our staff is the opportunity to submit recommendations for product enhancements that benefit the library customers and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of staff. Through a users group our Systems Administrator and other staff interact with a network of colleagues - to ask questions, provide tips, advocate for improvements and exchange support. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our system is provided through a consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The current ILS Vendor has not upheld certain contrqctual obligations: specifically some of the functionality related to holds of materials. yhe state library is among those who are unhappy wiht the results. Thes ystem is reliable but the company is slow to negotiate and commit to making the changes requested. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
Development at III is rapid and future-thinking. However, that means that getting current bugs fixed can sometimes be delayed while the next version of the failing function is being finished. This also means that if a problem affects only one customer, the problem tends to be put on the back burner if the resources needed to fix it are too great. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
The core Sierra product seems to be developing decently if a bit slowly, though support is declining once again over the last year. Ancillary products and extra-cost features are more problematic, such as Encore, Encore mobile, frozen holds, volume records, INN-Reach, Content Pro, etc., and there seems to be no effort to continue developing, repairing or enhancing existing (i.e. no new purchase cost) products. III keeps trying to shift us instead to new products, which are of course new sales. The billing is also problematic this year, with many large invoices being incorrect and needing revision downward. We're also being hassled for invoices which have been paid. None of this inspires confidence in their current business model. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
This survey is for the entirety of the [...] (25 Locations) [...] (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
When looking at discovery layer products, the Innovative products were quickly ruled out. This was partially because the company had been misleading during our search for a new ILS. The consortium has had issues with poor customer service, delayed updates & incompatibility with current Java updates in dealings with Innovative. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
III has started to turn around their Customer and Support service. They still have a long way to go. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
All of the training offered by Innovative Interfaces is prohibitively expensive. The Sierra documentation is disappointing. There are few screen shots and in many instances the Millennium documentation hasn't been updated for Sierra. On numerous occasions I've found that the documentation doesn't match the way that the product actually works. Since I'm dependent on the documentation, this is a big deal for me however the support staff seem to view this as a minor problem. Several functions important to my library no longer worked after we installed a new software level. I discovered during a presentation at the Mid-Atlantic Innovative Users Group that III no longer codes and installs bug fixes as bugs are discovered. Their plan for bug fixes seems to be to add them to a development release that may be a year or two away. I worked a software developer for decades and customers were never told to wait years for a bug fix. This thinking is incomprehensible to me. (Library type: Special; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
III has had a very rough year and being one of their customers has not been a great experience. It does seem that the company is truly trying to get itself back on track as a leader in innovation and quality the ILS world. Currently, they are saying the right things, but time will tell if they actually are able to follow through. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are part of a large consortium which has some challenges. The most disappointing thing is the automatic calling feature as it doesn't always work and we don't know it until a patron happens to come in and find out they have items ready for pickup but didn't get a call. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
The questions left unanswered mean I dont know the answer (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Innovative's Support for both Sierra and Encore is usually very slow. Trouble ticket response time has greatly increased, even when there is a critical problem. We have had to escalate issues on multiple occasions to get problems resolved. Often there is no answer when you call the support line. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
Our library upgraded to Sierra 2.0 in 2015 and the platform was so buggy we have had SP3 rolled out in the same year. Before the end of the year we upgraded to Sierra 2.1. Four upgrades in a year is a heavy load for a stand along library. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
The questions I did not answer do not apply. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Some support ticket responses have been weeks and months late. Some support staff responses are unhelpful "check the documentation" types, and some support staff seem new to the product. Response time and general level of support is definitely worse than our previous vendor (SirsiDynix). That said, we have not had many problems with the software and are becoming more comfortable with it since our late 2013 implementation. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Product is integrated into the III Inn-Reach system in place in our state. That integration is primary benefit of using III/Sierra. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
III is too rigid and lacks features that would be helpful. It would be nice to search for patrons by phone number, address, etc. Also, the create reports module is very difficult to use which means that managing collections is more cumbersome and less likely to be able to run reports on the collection. Seems to be designed for academic libraries rather than public libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Very expensive. Poor product design. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)
As a member of the library consortium that uses this product, I am completely satisfied with it. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
As part of statewide consortium that did vendor demos of ILS systems, we became acutely aware of the ways in which III has not kept up with the market or technology. It is hard to see how they will catch up let alone move ahead of the market. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We're members of a regional consortium and are in a shared ILS with [...] colleges/universities. This definitely complicates our experience and ability to customize. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We migrated to Sierra a few years ago and it continues to underperform to our expectations of a next generation ILS. The future of the company under venture capital management is disconcerting, as well. We have not experienced significant performance gains since the underwhelming migration, so are looking at new ILSs that are truly next-gen. Major frustrations have included: 1. A slow java-based client (worse than an old instance of Millennium, no less) 2. Costly add-on features 3. Annual cost increases that have grown in percentage in recent years (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
746,712 bib titles; e-resources do not have items attached. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] Sierra is a good product. However III's business pricing model and sales tactics are outrageous and it would be the reason we would not consider renewing our license. Our implementation experience was also very negative, mismanaged and marked by high turnover of the project management team assigned to our project. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
I would like to switch away from Sierra because the product is poor and the customer service is terrible, but our consortium is unlikely to switch, because we have worked with III for so many years. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We JUST went live on December 16th 2015, so I had a hard time providing answers based on real experience. I was out of the office for several weeks, so I haven;t really had a chance to flex my muscles with the software. So I answered what I could.... At least I know that, in comparison to Symphony, Sierra is a HUGE improvement. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Although the Sierra implementation meets the letter of the contract, we have been disappointed in the pace of development. Some functions remain accessible only through the character-based system that predates Millennium. That character-based system is increasingly a security faultline, but moving the remaining functions to Sierra apparently is still years away. Similarly, moving away from Java client technology has been long promised and long delayed. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
In [...] , all the [...]libraries use the same ILS, so that is a big factor in our choice of ILS vendor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
As of [...] Sierra has not been installed due to security issues with our Office of Information Technology. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium)
This is a skewed picture. 2015 was not only spent upgrading to Sierra from Millennium for the Law Library but the main institution migrated from another ILS to join us. We also added additional features and are still not totally up and running on all cylinders. I have been using III systems for over 30 years and had a high opinion of the product and services. However, I have been disappointed with some personnel used in this project and how long it has taken. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
[...] does not use Sierra or any other Innovative Interfaces product to manage its electronic resources. This system is shared with the University's Law Library. The responses above indicate only the opinions of [...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We need more options and more sophisticated features in an integrated library system. INN-Reach is a big tie for us as part of a consortium. The second migration to Sierra was extremely easy. The first time we attempted it, it was a huge failure as the product was not robust enough for the size of our library system. The difference in size between the hardware requirements for Millennium and Sierra is astonishing. How will any of these systems work with BIBFRAME? (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
The previous number of items in our collection may have been only book titles. The above number reflects all items. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I suspect that it will not be long before Innovative is sold to someone else, possibly a major player in the electronic resources field. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
The Library has been live with Sierra and Encore Duet for only two months so it is too early to be definitive in many of our answers. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Not certain that ANY product is perfectly suited yet - especially in the realm of discovery services. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are currently working with our consortium [..] and Innovative to resolve some major Sierra latency problems. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)
Managed services has resulted in an improvement of system performance, but upgrading to it resulted in significant functionality, configurations and settings lost in the process. Although many of these have been resolved with bug fixes, they usually require a server upgrade which can be very costly if not already included in contract schedule. Current version of OPAC is not yet mobile responsive, yet is extremely difficult and precarious to edit and therefore requires advanced skills and training. We are yet to upgrade to the latest version because the Acquisitions module is not yet available for it. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The thing we appreciate is that our vendor listens to us. We have focus groups and get to have a say on the future direction of the product (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Really disappointed in the Spydus 9 OPAC: had we had this survey earlier this year the scores would have suffered. The noises being made recently about the Spydus 10 OPAC have given us some hope of retrieving the situation. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We have just gone through an upgrade and we are not particularly happy with the web interface of the product. there are a lot of bugs in the product and has reduced services considerably at the moment. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Spydus has only been installed for 3 weeks and so the feedback is based on that (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Our parent organization is *extremely* risk averse. Open source products (and the skill sets and resources to support them) do not appear to figure in current planning. The preference is for a commercial, contracted (i.e. there are budgets and lawerable contracts) services. Ous Spydus system is hosted and managed by Civica - any future ILS would *probably* follow that pattern. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Can't provide too much of this information as it is done centrally trhough [...] at a higher level than mine (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Training is an issue as requires additional costs - I would think it would be to the suppliers benefit to have users well trained Also cost of additional modules prohibitive (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Civica's customer support and focus has to be commended. Over the past few years there has been a shift towards using customer's experiences and workflows to shape product development. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Due to ignorance of the company in Taiwan's market.The resouces of custermer, s services are short very seriously. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
The ILS has additional services that we make full use of, the global functionality which allows us to share with 5 other public and academic libraries and each retain our own parameters for charges etc and the Archive Management Programme we have over 100,000 records and 20,000 images managed by the system to international archives standards. We are starting the setup for the Events Management Programme and planning to add local schools as branches to the ILS when we upgrade to V10.3 early 2016 which has full web based functionality. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are part of a consortium on a shared system with 10 other local authorities. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Installation support inadequate Issues with speed of system and slow response to troubleshoot faults EDI problems (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We like this vendor because it is still Canadian. The product is not perfect but, has great flexibility and power if you are reasonably strong in Systems. I would really love the vendor to develop a user community - I think that the .. 'synergy' (Yuck) that could result from some of the more savvy users could be a bonus for the vendor and provide them opportunities to promote their products with real life examples of success stories. It would also relieve a lot of pressure on their Support Services (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We may move to an NZ consortium, but the software would be the same (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have never used all the modules with the Unicorn system. We had to add a technologist position to help maintain Discovery and webpage updates. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
SirsiDynix Symphony works very well for our print resources and for many of our ebooks, and integrates well with EBSCO EDS for our other eresources. Customer support from both companies is excellent. We are looking at other options mainly because of involvements with statewide and local area consortia which might provide for easier consortial borrowing and lending, and possible cost savings. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
ILS handling of electronic resources not applicable yet (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Comments regarding vendor satisfaction relate to our consortium, which handles relations with SIRSI and provides support for desktop Workflows implementation and Enterprise public web interface. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
I like what I have seen from SirsiDynix's next generation products (BlueCloud). However, the pace of development has been disappointing. Much of our development efforts lately has been not looking at our ILS or Discovery layer, but at our digital library/IR and software related to special collections: Islandora, Digital Commons, ArchiveSpace, Open Journal Systems, Aeon (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
While the SirsiDynix product we use is not flexible enough for a (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
SirsiDynix takes way too long to fix their bugs in my opinion. They often offer products and it doesn't work for production purposes until at least a year or more has passed. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our current system is mature and provides the functionality that we need, but much of the new functionality being developed by the company is not included in our current maintenance contract and would require additional funds to purchase and implement it. For this reason, it feels as though we are getting less for our annual maintenance fee than we did in the past since we are not gaining the benefit of new features as they are added. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We have concerns that Library vendors like SirsiDynix, Ex Libris, and Innovative are owned and swapped by private equity firms, which prioritize profits over ease of use for a library. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
Just a note we use Blacklight as primary catalog with EDS integration in Blacklight gem. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We signed the contract for Alma/Primo in 2014, but do not go live until April 2016. We are still currently using Sirsi's Symphony product. The answers to this survey are based on Symphony. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
General satisfaction with daily operations is high. Most functions work as expected. The consortium went through a process of reviewing other vendors and provided a list of improvements the current vendor needed to address. Signed a short term contract with existing vendor in order to gauge improvements. Vendor was reticent to agree to functionality improvements. This is a difficult decision for a large cooperative to come to terms with. Some are satisfied with staying the course, others think the grass is greener elsewhere. Both camps have valid reasons for their positions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have been very pleased with the direction that SirsiDynix is going. It's next generation (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
The system is managed by a team in the [...] campus. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium)
Thinking of implementing an ERM system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
In July 2015 we migrated from a local system to a SaaS system. The transition was smooth for the most part, a few glitches, but credit to the project manager and client care to resolve all issues within a week of the migration. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Support is excellent. The organization continues to develop new ways of presenting data and keeping up with technology. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Certain developments of the products can seem slow to reach completion but the needs of our small libraries are sufficiently met. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are about to get the vendors in again to demo their next-gen products. Last time we looked at the systems, around 8-12 months ago, we felt that the new products were still quite under-developed. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We just migrated to Symphony on November 13. Today is Nov. 17. This was my first migration and I did not have high expectations for SirsiDynix. I was very wrong. The project team from SD was amazing- very supportive and most importantly, responsive. We knew exactly what was going to happen and when. We went live on the day planned without any major issues. So far, our staff has been happy with Symphony. My issues with SD have to do more with training opportunities. Training for staff fell under "circulation" and "tech services" There were no specific "reference" training classes and when I asked for a custom class, the trainers were stumped. One of the weak areas for Symphony is that the system is divided into either circulation or tech services modules and leaves out reference services. Since public libraries rely heavily on helping patrons with reference questions, putting items on hold and general searching, this is a major weakness for Symphony. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our library has been a SirsiDynix customer for a very long time, but with the retirement of the previous Systems Librarian and the hiring of a new University Librarian we are looking at a migration to a cheaper and more modern option. SD has a tendency to charge quite a lot for relatively little and poor quality support and the ILS itself is an antique. It is felt that even if we were to pay a company for hosting and support of Evergreen it would be more sustainable than the current model and any money saved could go towards a discovery layer beyond Worldcat Local. We are aiming to be completely off Symphony and it's associated products by 2017. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)
Vendor has been slow in implementing Bluecloud products. Thank you for all the time and work you do with this survey and library technology as a whole. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] is a member of the [...] , a consortium of over 100 multi-type libraries in Montana. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are part of the statewide [...] so our interactions are with the state library, not the ILS vendor directly. We are not impressed with Enterprise. Patrons were frustrated with lots of false hits ("cabbage" when they wanted "cribbage"), we can't see the holdings of other libraries in the system, ILL requests are directed back to the Classic version of the catalog ... and it's not clear what can be changed/customized and what we're stuck with, especially in a consortium with 80+ libraries of different types (public, academic, special, school). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are considering migrating to a new ILS, but are currently reviewing current market. Cost, integration with other enterprise systems, and future development are the key concerns. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are extremely happy with the technical support and customer service of our consortial staff. We rarely work directly with SirsiDynix, so don't have a lot to base our rating of their support on. Our parent organization prefers not to use open source, so that would be our preference, but I'm confident that we would continue with our consortium if the group decided otherwise. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
SD is improving when it comes to understanding that ultimately the patron is the customer, not the Library; that Enterprise, for example, needs to work for the end-user, not just the Librarian. Open Source is always tempting but we lack the staff knowledge/skillset to implement it independently. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Recent migration to a new server had problems weeks after go live date. Company still too slow at implementing promised functionality. Focus on BLUECloud (BLUE = Best Library User Experience) seems to translate to "Make it pretty to attract users to public libraries" not "Help libraries provide better services for their users." (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Totally United States centric. Full of promises, but hopeless at delivery. Dates never realized. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
The [...] consortium just signed a second 7-year agreement with SirsiDynix, so we'll be using Symphony through 2022. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I gave SirsiDynix a lower mark for their handling of electronic resources since their ERMS does not provide legal resources. BLUECloud Campus seems to be the closest product suite in terms of what would be required to manage our e-resources but would need to be adapted to federal government or special libraries such as ours vs. academic type libraries. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
A module for electronic resources has been introduced but our library has not chosen to spend the money for it. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
SirsiDynix has become a much more open, reliable company to work with since the current executive team has been in place. And, since ICV bought the company, there seems to be a greater focus on product quality instead of product deadlines. The care, and customer input that has gone into the BlueCloud products is phenomenal. I don't know any other software company that involves its customers as directly in its development planning as SirsiDynix does. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Handled through consortium, I added answers anticipating that survey would be rejected if not filled in, unable to remove them completely after I added them. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
We tried open source, but it was not as reliable and the support wasn't where we needed it to be for the amount of transactions we typically see. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium)
We are happy with how progressive SirsiDynix has become with providing a complete system and with the direction they are taking with their Blue Cloud products. They listen to us and respond to our concerns and requests. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Our satisfaction with SirsiDynix has definitely improved over the last 1-2 years. We find them more responsive to individual requests and new products are launching more quickly. They've also made an effort to include some new products in existing maintenance plans. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
SirsiDynix has good, stable, reliable software - but their development timeline is very extended, especially for their OPAC, and their pricing is very high. Their drip-pricing model to charge for each module, service & license is making us grow quite dissatisfied. We are currently monitoring their BlueCloud product, which will influence our decision to stay with SirsiDynix. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Jump in collection size is due to ebooks. We have added 250,000+ (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
fully featured product, not so good on the reporting side. Support is generally very good and the company is good at listening (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Very early in the investigative process. The problem is not so much with SirsiDynix Symphony product, but the small amount that we have implemented from them. We definitely need additional capability and are thus reviewing what the options are -- which includes looking at other vendors. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are having to do a tender exercise during the next 2 years to remain in alignment with University procurement policy. However, we are satisfied with the supplier we have and are making the system work as well as we can until this tender exercise starts. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We recently added Enterprise and eResource Central which has helped with the discovery of our electronic holdings. Overall, I am very happy with Sirsi, but a great product does come at a cost. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
It seems to me that this fall there have been many more glitches of various kinds in many of the products we use. This is unsettling and perhaps is because the age of computerization is fairly young. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We're migrating with a go-live date of 4/19/16. Same ILS, but joining the [...] consortia. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
I'm answering the survey from a consortia staff perspective since [...] is not a library. We implement, enhance and support the ILS and Discovery for member libraries. I have sent the survey to each [...] member to complete. The library collection count is a cumulative total of all LOUIS libraries. [...] has a strong partnership with SirsiDynix. The current ILS meets the primary needs of [...] member libraries, but we're looking forward to using the BLUEcloud products since libraries' needs are rapidly changing. However, we have been discouraged by the slow roll-out of the new products. We first heard the term BLUEcloud at the users conference in 2011. In 2012, we learned that new cloud based applications were coming soon. In 2013, it was branded as BLUEcloud Suite. In 2014, more updates and now called an LSP with EDS integration coming soon. In 2015, it was rebranded as BLUEcloud Campus. Unfortunately, we still don't have any of the core BC Campus products in Production. While the products have a lot of potential, they're still not full-featured and remain disjointed. We remain optimistic that it's coming together soon. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We have found the the SirsiDynix Symphony ILS is the easiest system Centenary College of Louisiana has ever migrated to. The LOUIS support team and the Symphony Team are great to work with. Thank you for being an excellent system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
The majority of ILS Support issues are directed to us right here at the cooperative from our member libraries and we are able to resolve about 95% of them. We create cases with client care for those that we are unable to resolve. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
The development of cloud-based modules (cataloging, stats/reports, circulation) is a direction we are pleased with, though we haven't yet started using any of those modules (except Enterprise). (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Catalog shared with Consortium. Contract with vendor is coming up for renewal. Discovery: [...] uses VuFind for access to one digital collecton and is implementing it for another digital collection, but not for the collectoin as a whole. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Migration seems inevitable, though costly. SirsiDynix products are improving but to what extent its e-resources management can improve is a question. The linked data trend is also pressing for decision-making. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
I wish SirsiDynix would devote more resources to our mobile users. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
My experience with SirsiDynix has been that they are very helpful and flexible in working with me. They provide a lot of documentation and their customer support is good. They move quickly to resolve issues and help find solutions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We belong to a consortium, so will go with whatever the larger group decides. We do not have adequate staffing to support open source software, so the consortium administration would have to supply that. This need would add to the maintenance cost of open source. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
BiblioCommons is great! (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The number in our collection is our main and branch library. The branch library is in the process of being automated and should be completed by the end of December. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have been out to tender for a new ILS/Discovery solution during 2015 and having evaluated the market we chose Ex Libris' Alma & Primo, which we are currently implementing, as this solution met in an integrated way our current and future needs as a Library service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We would like a vendor provided data reporting system. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
We plan to review the marketplace for Discovery systems in the coming year to decide whether to stay with Summon or move to some other product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are still learning and improving the system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
SirsiDynix's slow migration to the new, still-developing BLUEcloud platform puts some libraries in a sort of limbo. The company seems less interested in fixing issues on the current platform as it shifts resources to BLUEcloud. We doubt that we will be confident enough in the new product to migrate to BLUEcloud PAC, Cataloging or Circulation modules for at least a couple more years. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We migrated from Koha (PTFS) in April 2015 to Symphony (SirsiDynix). We were very pleased that SirsiDynix was able to meet our accelerated migration timeline. We were very pleased with the migration team and with the customer service that we have received since the migration. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
better copy and paste features are needed. the "help" tab is not very helpful (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Search terms must be very specific to find a particular title or subject. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)
Budget prevents consideration for replacement ILS or implementation of a discovery interface. Over the past years, we have been forced to continue with reduced features on ILS due to expenditures. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are just beginning the process to migrate from Sirsi/Dynix Unicorn to ExLibris Alma. Our go live is April 2016. We were less and less satisfied with Sirsi and the pricing for the modules we had. And the pricing we were offered to move to the more current offerings (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
SirsiDynix Symphony is the only ILS I have worked with, so it speaks volumes that I'm extremely unsatisfied with it. The interface is bulky and has not been updated in many years; the reports module is absolutely not intuitive and difficult to use, and the formatting of the reports themselves is horrific. The holds feature is not helpful for our consortium, as there is no option to say "no" to issuing a hold and have it speedily go to the next library in the queue. Being part of a consortium, I don't think Symphony has met our needs, so I look forward to the process of looking into other vendors. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)
We just completed the RFP/bid process to continue with SirsiDynix. (Library type: School; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
I received approval this morning to migrate to Bywater Solutions in the coming year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are part of a library consortium so we went with the ILS that was chosen by the consortium. Our collection is all electronic, so the discovery interface is the one that the patrons use. The ILS runs in the background. The consortium will be looking at other ILS products as it comes up for renewal. At that time, I would assume that we would look at open source possibilities. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
Most of the information requested here is handled at a consortium level (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Great people to work with, across the board, at Sirsi Dynix! (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
NA (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
Would like more functionality with basic ILS package - such as richer reports, and resource sharing. Running ILS Discovery Layer without any access to journals. Ebsco EDS is set up but without access to our print collection. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Systems handles consortial aspects of service well - service is a shared Library service for [...] (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are part of the [...] library system. So leaving or shopping for something better is dependent on them. When this director contacted sirsi directly to improve the way we print overdue notices, I was told by Sirsi that I was not authorized to inquire. This is an unacceptable reply in the library service industry. I have used four other library circulation systems in my career and each of these other companies were more receptive to inquiries about their systems. Also their systems were set up to allow the user to transition from one task to another with- out exiting the current screen. Thank you (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)
Being in a consortium has its advantages (lower cost/maintenance) but you unable to customize (or harder to). (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Estimados felicito el trabajo que realizan, debo informarles que UPAO se encuentra en proceso de implementación del SIGB de Symphony, a partir del próximo año responderemos a la encuesta. Gracias (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small)
SirsiDynix Symphony is a good product, but is severely lacking in reporting functionality and RFID integration. Customer support is handled through our consortium so I don't have direct experience. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
The ILS is very patron-friendly (once they get used to it), but not staff-friendly. Patrons have more freedom and control over their accounts, which is great. However, the staff interface is like something from the 1990's in both appearance and functionality. You have to constantly open new tabs/windows to do pretty much anything and you can only accomplish one small thing with each tab/window. The item windows are also cramped and crowded. You have to scroll and scroll and scroll some more. The search interface, for both patrons and items, is difficult to use - too many different buttons and limiting is awful. At this point in time, EVERY search engine should be a "smart" search engine and recognize misspellings and partial words or names. The other really bad thing is that it is very difficult to pull useful reports and they can't be sorted in any useful manner. You are limited to ONE sort criteria, and it's not "smart" enough to omit articles (a, an, the) from the sort, so nearly everything ends up in the T's under "The ...". If you export a report to Excel, the row data isn't always locked together, so if you try to sort there, only the column you select will sort and all the other data remains in its original rows. I end up having to cut and paste to sort the reports manually. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
Open Source still needs more "there" for a complex consortia. Given the reduction of ILS vendors to choose from, it is important to consider the possibilities. Sirsi needs to deliver on the Blue Cloud vision more quickly. There is concern over true cutting edge development with Polaris. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
No system is perfect and our options seem to be decreasing instead of increasing in terms of an ILS. Improvements need to be made within Sirsi. We are still not happy with the searching in Enterprise after our rollout of a year ago. Searching seems to pose many problems for Sirsi. The other issue is that the cost for a migration is high and so a new system would need to be worth it to move. However, each system has its downsides. We wish that enhancements and changes could happen more rapidly. We feel that the systems are already behind and can't keep up with other technological changes. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We have not yet started to use Symphony. We will be converting from Autographics AgentVerso to Symphony in January/February 2016. We were very happy with the AgentVerso product and especially with their customer service. A new library board here chose to move from an independent ILS to the [...] as a cost saving measure. None of the library staff were consulted in regards to this move. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium)
[...] (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
SirsiDynix seems to be moving in a better direction than products of the past and working to put the resources into a better environment. Customer support for Enterprise and eResource Central issues has improved over the past year. In-person training received for Sirsi Acquisitions in past year was inadequate for our staff. I would recommend an open source ILS if we were to hire the staff required to support it. Current staffing inadequate for open-source ILS support. Sirsi Frontline support has always been responsive, but development is WAY behind what it should be for 2015. Both front end and back end interfaces should be MUCH more streamlined and any public facing sites should be responsive, which they are not. Features, like ERC and Bookmyne, are released and sold/promoted to libraries prematurely (buggy, beyond typical post-beta standards). (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Our library gets it's ILS through a consortium of libraries represented by our state library which represents every public library, the community colleges throughout the state and a couple of high school.s The decision for which products or vendors used and the maintenance involved is not this library's decision alone. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The vendor does not appear to be keeping up progress in ILS development (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)
We need a LMS that really considers the needs of a modern school library. Our current system is so big it cannot be structured down in any manageable way. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
We have an ILS administered by [...] - we contact only a representative of the [...] at the state library. They are the ones who contact the company when necessary. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
The BLUEcloud product line is increasingly impressive and competitive in the ILS market place. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are a life-long Sirsi Dynix customer, and we are very satisfied with their products and services. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are in an RFP process (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
If this consortium decides to migrate to a new ILS vendor, it is primarily going to be due to the public interface rather than dissatisfaction with the ILS/staff side. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
If we were to go to an open source solution it would have to be very robust and support an acquisitions module. The driving factor for us in reviewing what ILS will work for us is how easy it is for our patrons to use. Does it search our system fast and accurately. Does it pull up good results even when words are misspelled. Enterprise (our current catalog) has pulled up books on cats when we're looking for rats and is slow. We are part of a large consortium and so have a very large database of items but I still would like faster searching. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
WorkFlows functons fine most of the time. There are a few features that are a bit bulky or non-intuitive, but we have figured them out and we are a member of a larger library system that provides us with all of our tech support so we very rarely deal directly with SirsiDynex (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are very satisfied with our SIRSI system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We were disappointed in their mobile app product so have released our own in-house designed product. Our in house product works on both iOS and Android - the vendor supplied one only worked on iOS. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
I like that the company is involving its customers more directly in the shape of future products with emphasis on the Strategic Partner Program and enhancement process. I also like that the Blue Cloud suite of products brings the Symphony and Horizon groups together. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
I'm afraid that some of my responses will be inaccurate because you do not have a n/a (not applicable) selection or "not sure." Because I do not work directly with SIRSI -- I work with Automation Support at the state level. The bottom line is this, I have been hired to support a variety of library users (many without formal training) with circulation software that is absolutely not designed by anyone who ever worked in a library. I'm no genius, but I have worked extensively with 3 other Circulation Software platforms. Sirsi Dynex is the worst by far. I've never seen a system in which the basic Collection Management functions of cataloging and item maintenance are summarily ignored and replaced by functions that are inaccurate and counterintuitive. Every day I just shake my head and say, "Who made this?" (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 1)
Have already begum migration to WMS for a Go-Live inJuly 2016 (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
When upgrading to Symphony we initially opted to implement BlueCloudPAC, which we used for several months. We were one of the first users, having implemented it within a few weeks of completion of beta testing. We finally asked to be switched back to an earlier version of Discovery Interface and are now using e-Library. BlueCloudPAC may eventually become a very useful product, but we found it to lack many essential functions, as well as having too high an error rate. Our opinion is that it needed more detailed development before being ready to launch. We have shared this feedback with SirsiDynix. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
I was not able to answer all of these questions due to the fact that the system was already in place when I took the job. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
New Director and I am not sure of all the current issues. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
SirsiDynix is implementing a cloud-based product called "BlueCloud." We're in the process of setting up this product. It should work simultaneously with Sirsi's Symphony product. The questions that I answered above are in response to the Symphony product. The BlueCloud products are not yet functional for our needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Our library does not deal directly with Sirsi Dynix. All direct contact with the company comes from the Provincial Library. I can not respond to the questions on the customer support from Sirsi-Dynix. This situation also applies to decisions on new systems. I gave answers of 0, but prefer Not Applicable. Electronic resources (downloadable ebooks/audiobooks) are managed by OverDrive. Our Symphony record only shows whether we have it, one must logonto OverDrive to get the item's status. A direct link is given from our public catalogue. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
As with any product, having the support from all parties (i.e. Consortium, SirsiDynix Client Care, etc.) can only make your ILS function the way you desire. Giving feedbacks allows SD to improve their product and allows us to tailor the system the way we want it to work. (Library type: Military; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We'd like to see better integration of the electronic and print resources. It's still cumbersome to manage. Overall, the customer service continues to improve. We are anxious to implement the Blue Cloud products and plan on that for 2016. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
ILS provided by consortium. Support provided only through consortium. Support has severe limitations only due to consortium, not necessarily ILS vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Standard reports are clumsy to use, as are some of the circulation staff functions. The ILS allows for a very broad range of configurations, but the setup seems complicated. Hosted ILS system response time is very good. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are very glad to be migrating to Ex Libris Alma/Primo and look forward to evaluating that product next year. We are scheduled to go live with the new product the end of April but do not have a test or production envirorment at this time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)
[...] has recently (June, 2014) become part of a consortium after having been a stand alone since 2004. The consortium leadership is tremendously knowledgeable. We can highly recommend Libraries of [...] as a high quality consortium. Our use of the functions in Sirsi Dynix Symphony Workflows has increased by 80-90%. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Some of the responses above reflect the fact that we are part of a consortium with our local public library and have limited administrative privileges for our ILS. The ILS vendor is not helpful towards those who are part of a consortium. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
As we have just recently become automated, do not have a set opinion as pertains to this library. Am just happy we are now automated. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] does not procure or utilize all of SIRSI's modules nor do we intend to because the solution in total does not meet our needs. For example most of our electronic resources are not managed by Symphony at all but are delivered directly though our open source discovery interfaces. However, Symphony does meet a portion of our requirements and is part of an overall architecture of systems that work together to serve our overall diverse needs. We aim to select the best tools to solve our problems so this architecture will evolve over time. The number above only reflects print volumes and electronic books. With the addition of journals, digitized content, media and manuscripts, this number comes to [...]. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
The "One Card One Library" system for South Australia has been very successful and has been fully embraced by all libraries (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Support with current vendor has been frustrating over the last year because it is based in USA and the time difference has caused delays. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] makes the decisions regarding our automation system. We are not able to make changes to the system. I do not feel that all of the features of the product are made available to us. We would like more control as a library and not have to go thru the consortium for reports, and features such as text notification to our patrons. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
SirisDynix's new BlueCloud platform is looking good, however the rollout seems slow and directed at public/uni libraries and often the needs of special libraries is over looked. But when we ask for functions to be turn off, or processes to be altered for our requirements, and security on our catalogue/discovery layer, SirisDynix and the software has proved to be very adaptable. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are moving into a temporary location this year while our library undergoes major renovations, so no changes will be made to our ILS. We were thinking of switching to their Cloud option, but what was presented and the realities of the limitations of the product just doesn't work for us at this time. It is under consideration for when we return to our renovated space. We would love to consider an open source product, but until we have our own dedicated IT support person, this is just not possible. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Chinese (Traditional ) interface version. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our ILS is old, but overall we're satisfied with it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our ILS decisions are currently made by the provinces, but they are being abolished. The decision will move to a higher (national) level. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Question relating to our ILs managing electronic resources, it does not apply Question regarding if the service had improve or got worst. It's stable we are very happy with our service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Once you finish implementing the system, it is fantastic; although implementing it was not an easy task. It is almost like an open source system, whereby all the set up has to be done by the library. I am also told that in order to implement the Discovery module, you have to be very knowledgeable about Java. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are currently in an education process with the ILS. It may be that once further training has been received on the ILS that perceptions change. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
Two modules need more functionality: Reports, Global Search and Replace . (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
The vendor seems to be trying hard to improve communication and customer service. This was it's downfall in the past. With these attempts the company has risen greatly to have an overall favorable impression. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I am very satisfied with our system. The customer support is consistently great! The only reason I gave a less than excellent response above is that I wish it would provide the interface with Unique Management without it costing more than the system did! I also wish it could be NCIP without an additional charge. When I found out how much it would cost for the Unique Management module (over 5 years), I pointed out that if I could afford that, I wouldn't need Unique Management. We could afford to just write off the unreturned books and replace them. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
AG offers solid software at an affordable price which frees up dollars to support other patron service endeavors. Help desk support is better than most. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
This product works well for us because if any problems or difficulties are encountered we immediately contact the Southwest Kansas Library System team who take care of whatever the difficulty may be. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
AG Verso has been through many updates. When they announce the updates, they do not communicate very well regarding how to tell if you need to get your internal IT departmental help to be sure the update goes through, versus when they are minor updates. This results in many phone calls, emails and other delays until your update is working properly. Also, the features regarding to create bibliographic lists and to read circulation statistics are difficult to operate and difficult to view results. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are a small library and we rely on our ILS tech support to help us and we have always found they to be very responsive and very helpful. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
This product gets a lot of comparison to KOALA. The Riviera Beach Public Library seems to be one of a very small group still using this product in our area. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We really do appreciate the quick help from the customer service. There are still some sections of the new ILS system that we need help on and the customer service has done a fine job helping us along. Thank you very much. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
There are some components that we miss. It would be great if we could chose what dates we want to review on all reports. Having sound when we check an item out and not just when checking an item in. (And yes all are settings in Verso show that it is on.) Having a place to list memorial on books. Books we have showing up on search no matter if we search by title, author, or subject. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
An acquisitions subsystem capable of allowing holds to be placed on items currently only ordered and not yet received or held is highly desirable. The reporting functions of the system need to be more flexible. See the old Dynix RECALL module. it had nearly unlimited flexibility and strength. All fields should be searchable and a simple search language should be available to operators. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
The overall feeling of Verso is that it was not created by someone who knew how to best perform circulation operations (the heart of the library), not to mention other operations. A couple of issues faced on a daily basis are too many steps in performing functions and having to scroll down on the screen to view information. I've had experience with Horizon, Millennium, Evergreen and Verso. Although it took numerous updates to get to a user-friendly state with Evergreen, Verso is a distant fourth as far as usability. I've talked with staff at various libraries and have had in-depth discussions with my staff at two libraries--almost everyone feels they've gone dramatically backwards with Verso. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)
The search engine is not user friendly enough. The phrasing and spelling of the search must be too exact. We would like the search to account for misspellings. We would also like for the search option to always be available and not have to be opened for use. This is a function we use all the time, every day. Thank you for considering these suggestions. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I am very pleased that they are always looking at ways to improve the system and make it more user friendly. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
A way to alphabetize the "My Lists" once the list is created. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
[...] I am grateful for the expertise of Auto Graphics and thrilled with the performance of our current system. Remember, I have no experience with any other ILS or ILS vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are very satisfied with Auto-Graphics and Verso. However, the instability and temporary discontinuation of the [...] Catalog and ILL Service has made us consider joining a consortium. IF AG can implement a Consortium of [...] Verso libraries, we will most likely stay with them. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
I do not like the search option. It does not bring up everything that I asked for plus the advanced option does not work correctly for us. I do Inter Library Loans (ILL) and it is very hard and a pain to search in verso especially after I put an ILL through. The search resets itself and I have to go back and check mark the libraries I want and put my search keywords in again. This is very hard to do and very time consuming. It wouldn't be a problem if I just did 1 or 2 searches at a time but when I have lots of searching to do for items to request then it is very frustrating. To sum: The search and advance search is very FRUSTRATING for me as an Inter Library Loan staff member. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The only problems we have with Verso are printing labels and doing searches by subject. It is nearly impossible to find a book without the exactly correct title or author. We keep our old system open under Verso to locate books. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
a discovery interface sounds very helpful, but not sure at this point what it would involve to implement etc. Would want to research the possibilities much more. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Auto-graphics has the BEST people, customer service, and affordability. We are so thankful to have them. (Library type: Public; collection size: small)
Question 4- we do not currently have electronic resources, and there is no option for "N/A". Recently Agent/Verso seems to have grown exponentially. In making the system more generic to offer appeal to a wider variety of libraries, it seems that we have lost very useful features that were core to the operation of the system especially for a small library. (ie: the emphasis seems to be on adding functionality for billing services, texting, usage of Tablets when there are issues in the checkout, and check-in areas which could be much more user friendly.) (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I would describe Verso by Autographics to be serviceable, but lacking in some areas. I would like to see better integration between Verso and Overdrive as well as better integration between Verso and MeL (Michigan Electronic Library). Customer service is kind of spotty, and sometimes my tickets go unanswered. The discovery interface is better than nothing, but not by much. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
We were extremely disappointed with the training received during initial implementation. All training was completed via telephone rather than in person. I believe we would have learned more if we were trained in person. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)
This ILS system works well for smaller libraries, but needs a process for handling bulk updates/deletions of MARC records. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I've been pleased with Auto-Graphics and their willingness to listen to what our libraries need. There are updates continually adding new features that will help libraries and their patrons find the information they need. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I think the vendor is doing its best; the challenge I have with full implementation and satisfaction is the capability of my IT Support Unit to read the manuals and assist the librarian to make the best out of the ILS. (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Shortly after we purchased in 2014, and before we implemented, the company was purchased by Innovative. This seriously affected customer service. It does seem that things have improved somewhat. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
The number of items above is for the items in the catalogue. We have many other collecitons not catalogued. Virtua is a well working, matured ils, that fills our needs perfectly fine. It's a bit old, and some people would like to have a new, more modern system to work in/with. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our library is one of 4 partners in [...] coalition. Innovative-VTLS no longer supports Virtua and we had the final upgrade in 2013. We approached Innovative for possible options but they are unable to support broadcast searching of multiple databases and we would be required to merge (not an option we prefer). They are also not interested in providing a server in Canada. It was evident from one conference call that we are too small to be of much interest to Innovative.(no follow up since January 2015) One partner now opted for open source and another has purchased a small in-house system. The Koha (Bywater) installation will go live in December 2015 and the 2 remaining partners still with Virtua are watching closely. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 1)
Our library is currently considering migrating to a new automation system in the context of a global Swiss project called SLSP (Swiss Library Service Platform). (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)
We just signed a contract with SirsiDynix and will be switching from Innovative-Virtua to Symphony in April 2016. When Innovative bought VTLS in 2014, it was evident that Virtua was no longer going to be developed because Innovative now had 3 competing products. The determining factor in our switch however has mostly been determined by cost. The fall of the Canadian dollar has been a significant hurdle in dealings with any American vendor. The customer support staff has been extraordinary over the last 20 years I've been with the library. One of the advantages of having dealt with a smaller company is that you get to know the staff better; there's a rapport you develop that you won't necessarily get with some of the larger companies and I will miss that. We were early implementers of FRBR (although we had to abandon the model after the company dropped its support) and an early innovator in the use of Unicode. VTLS was actually one of the more innovative of ILS vendors and although there were many challenges along the way, the strongest element of the company was its support staff. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Our university has grown significantly in size, and yet the staff of the library has not. The administration does not value the library and does not feel that it requires updated physical space or human resources to manage print or growing electronic collections. Although we need to implement discovery and repository systems and start the process to migrate to a next gen ILS, we simply do not have the human resources required to do any of those things currently. We also have long-term staff retiring and that has been a significant challenge. Although I have tried to use the systems we have in unorthodox ways to manage certain aspects (just make it work), not everyone is on board with this approach. It is very frustrating. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We are used to Voyager, and many of us are hesitant to give it up. We are used to its problems and limitations. The new LSP products don't seem mature enough yet. We want the new products to give us at least the same functionality we have now, as well as new features. We have not found a new LSP product that is mature enough to handle print collections. They are built for electronic collections, which is great, but the vendors largely have neglected print collections in their race to develop new products. We want a product that will handle print collections and electronic collections equally. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
There is currently an open RFP for a new ILS for our consortium, [...] . A discovery layer is not required to submit a proposal. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Transitioning to Alma FY 17 (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)
Increasingly not liking any of the traditional ILS vendors from a value proposition standpoint. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We weren't sure how to answer the question regarding Ex Libris' customer support during the last year. We are happy with their customer service, but it hasn't gotten better or worse during the last year. Since it has remained the same, we put it down as a 5. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are looking for a low-cost system. Our library does not need all of the functions that large ILSs offer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Ex libris is catering to the larger research libraries and is not meeting the needs of smaller libraries. We are looking for na integrated library system and discovery tool that will work well with other systems like google and not be so separate. I would love to purchase the Google ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
With Voyager eventually ending we need a new ILS. This will be in 2017 at the earliest, given 2016 budgets have been decided. A formal selection process has not been run yet. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We are still implementing Summon so no impressions of it yet. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We have decided that moving to OLE, under the community-source model will best support the needs of our library going forward. We were not entirely comfortable with the closed SaaS approach of Alma, and not confident that ExLibris could provide the flexibility and access to data that we need as a large, highly complex research library that tends to push the boundaries on how we use our systems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our consortium has discussed the possibility of changing our OPAC interface, but beyond that there is no good reason to change automation systems at this point. I do not have satisfactory data on how automation vendors are dealing with future changes--making more effective use of RDA, the possible demise of MARC, changes to authority creation, and future BIBFRAME implementation. I will consider migrating when questions regarding the future of our data have been satisfactorily answered. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The approximate number of items submitted above is the number of bib records, as not all of our item holdings are barcoded. We hope to migrate to a new ILS in 2018. (Library type: Theology; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Voyager Customer Support really hasn't changed from last year--it's still very good. The company overall is very good, and we like its philosophy and direction. However, the cost is becoming prohibitive for us in this era of budget cuts, with new cuts every year. (Library type: State; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Because [...] is a member of GALILEO, we will be moving to ALMA. My answers reflect using our current system--Voyager 9.0. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We have been with Voyager for 16 years. The system has evolved to do many of the things we have needed over the years but our needs are evolving and there is a sense that it is time to move to a more modern platform. We are at the very beginning of our evaluation process. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Strategically, we have decided not to consolidate all library workflows into on singel vendor/product, but rather take a modular approach to library systems. Though both straties (consolidation and modularity) has it's advantages, we decided on the modular approach since we think it will give us more flexibility, and better possibliities to actually work with and develop our workflows. Consolidation would, for us, mean gambling too much on one single tender. We decided on Koha due to it being a mature product with an active community. We will only use Koha for circulation. We would like to do more UX work with the administrative interfaces for Koha. We like open source, but will tender for e-management solutions because (as far as we have seen) there is no open data knowledgebase available. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)
We are potentially interested in both a discovery interface and an open source ILS but have not identified specific candidates. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
The entire [..] has contracted to migrate to Alma, but this is a long migration with the "go live" for Alma projected to occur in May/June 2017. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
We can't answer question about implementation satisfaction, no history OLE may be implemented at several state universities as a single system (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The maintenance costs for Voyager are very high, especially for smaller organizations. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Above number of 50,000 refers to print and media items. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Half of the state universities in Kentucky went with OCLC and the other half went with ExLibris. So far we are happy with our decision to migrate to Alma/Primo. The EBSCO will not let its data be indexed in Primo Central and that OCLC limits the use of it's API to subscribers of its discovery interface are the two biggest things that diminish the value of Primo for us. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 1)
Right now our digital security folks have disabled our ILS for an unspecified period of time, but I've been pretty satisfied with ExLibris' customer support and willingness to help me figure things out. As for Open Source--I'm sure that those types of programs would probably be considered a security risk. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Voyager requires a lot of knowledge of Access, SQL, etc., to run reports and change the public interface and functionality. Easier methods of doing these things should be built into a modern system. Summon is frustrating because of duplicate titles, confusing mapping set-up forms, and slow customer service for basic tasks like indexing or processing mapping requests. Voyager/Summon interfacing is clunky. We hope that the recent acquisition of Voyager by ProQuest will lead to better relations between the two product support teams. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We expect to migrate to ALMA/Primo in the 2016 calendar year. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are beginning to implement Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
As you know, big news this year with ProQuest acquisition of Ex Libris. What does this mean for Intota? We had hoped that Intota would provide good competition for Alma. At this point, ProQuest says they will keep on developing Intota, but we don't think they really know yet. They talk about merging products into best of breed for resource mgmt and discovery. Alma has been a clear front-runner in the academic market and has built in consortial functionality for their new customers, e.g. Orbis Cascade. We have been following this closely as, in Ontario, we are moving into a second phase of a serious examination of the possibility of up to 18 university libraries on some kind of shared LSP, and we are finding that the market continues to be difficult, in that Alma still appears to be the only "next-gen" system aside from OCLC which is seen to be limited; there could still be significant functionality gaps (?); and others (e.g. III, SirsiDynix) are cobbling together updated versions of their old systems together with knowledge bases and discovery layers (e.g. from EBSCO). So -- our perception is that it is very difficult for anyone looking to make a long-term change right now, unless you jump in with Alma and hope that the ProQuest/Ex Libris merger works out well (again, perception as a customer of both and from going to their user group meetings is that they both have lots of talent and we are hopeful of good results -- eventually). However, it has been very disappointing, the pace of development of Intota. We upgraded from Serials Solutions to Intota in summer 2014, and there has been very little functionality development, rather work on performance/back end, with the promise of rapid development that didn't happen -- it really was mostly a change in interface. So -- our perception of Intota is that it may not happen, and that ProQuest sees their KB and Summon to be better, so may graft them on to Alma (?) -- and all this will take time for ProQuest/Ex Libris to sort out. Thanks for doing this survey and all your other work -- it's invaluable for all of us who are investigating the market! New automation system? If yes, under consideration: Alma, Intota (if it develops into a full LSP; we have already implemented Intota ERM with Summon and 360 Link); we will look at OCLC WMS -- these seem to be the "next-gen" options. We will probably have to look at all the others too: e.g Sierra, SirsiDynix BlueCloud (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
We're still Voyager 8 (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Voyager is now getting very long in the tooth. We are still receiving updates, but there isn't any real innovation going on in the product. Despite the problems with Voyager, we are still impressed with Ex Libris as a vendor. They are very polished, and are committed to continuous improvement of their products and services. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)
The [...] are switching to Alma next year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
This survey assumes we are one library, but, in fact, we are a consortial office which currently manages the library's ILS server. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)
Our system is procured, implemented and managed by our consortium, [...] . Consequently some of my answers above reflect that structure. [...] is the one who works with Ex Libris customer service and the decisions regarding a new ILS (open source, implementation timeline, RFP, etc.) are made by [...] committees and central staff. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)
Our library is interested in open source ILS, but our consortium has ruled that out at this point. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
We presently have good relations with both ExLibris and ProQuest /Serials Solutions. We would like to see how the field of Next Generation ILS' develop before making any move. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our instance of ALMA is not installed at this time. We are working toward moving from Voyager to ALMA at this time. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Traditional ILS functionality related to management of physical collections is a "solved problem"; management of electronic collections is getting there. Issues related to discovery and fulfillment, particularly those related to born-digital special collections, consortially managed print facilities and hosted article discovery platforms appear to be beyond the capabilities of current offerings be they open source or commercial. The pace of change and the speed with which Library automation vendors have kept up does not inspire confidence. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
EDS works quite well with our electronic resources, but less effectively with our print collections. Some of our print holdings do not display in EDS, and because of the complex interaction between the consortium, EBSCO, and the ILS, we unfortunately have not been able to determine why. The process of updating our records is a bit of a mystery. Only one open source product is suitable for our consortium but much of it is still in development. Issues with local development capabilities (staffing) and with ability to influence development without being a development partner. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Ex Libris has 3 library systems (Voyager, Aleph and Alma) and although they continue to have a roadmap for Voyager the enhancements aren't very exciting or groundbreaking. The lack of a functional ERM is really holding us back; we are currently using an in-house system to track licensing and information for usage statistics. The investigation of a new system is being done at the consortia level. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)
The discovery interface implementation was scheduled to take 3 months it took almost two years, and still has not performed as expected. Key project managers on the of the vendor side resigned the company before project completion. A lot of the data entry configuration was carried out by library personnel. Did not accommodate a lot of of our subscription services such as EBSCO. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
The number of items depends on how you count. We have over 13 million documents but they are (for the most part) described at the collection level in the ILS. We have about 200,000 bib records. (Library type: Independent Research; collection size: very small)
EL doesn't do much for us in regards to Voyager despite expensive software maintenance costs. We haven't done an upgrade since 2012; to version 8.2.0; as a result of RDA changes. We have held off upgrading until a decision was made on a possible replacement. This is now not likely to happen for a couple of years at least. We do all of the VuFind work in-house, albeit not much has been done in the past 2 years for the same reason as Voyager, in case we purchased a replacement. We now need to upgrade hardware as well as software to a later version as our code is based on the the very first version, with some tweaking, and is now becoming problematic. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)
We do not deal with the vendor directly. We are extremely pleased with the support services from our consortium. Our consortium is looking for a replacement for the current ILS system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are joining a neighboring consortium and migrating off Vubis to Sirsi Dynix in July. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)
The number of items include the archives as well, as we use the ILS for both library and archives collections. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We are a research library so our needs are very different from a public or academic library. Our books do not circulate so we choose to use Word Press to develop our website and library/digital catalog. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our library collection is much closer to 550,000 thanks to our ILS that provides linking to all of that content. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
OCLC WMS provides relatively high functionality for bibliographic and discovery at an affordable price and operates with very few professional staff.... (Library type: Special; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)
We purchased WMS Discovery. We also joined Navigator, the shared catalog product. Though they are both owned by OCLC they are not compatible - something we were NOT told at time of purchase. Further, we purchased the enhanced analytics system, but recently learned they FORGOT to install it. This was not evident because the options controlled by that system were simply invisible. We received a refund for one year of the purchase price of this product last week. Our director, who only uses the public interface, really likes the catalog. The rest of us HATE it. It lacks simple functionality in several areas, is not intuitive for users, has serious ranking and display issues, and about the only good things we can say are that it looks pretty and is cloud based, thus eliminating the need for backups. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
OCLC has had a lot of down time this year, which is new for them, but doesn't inspire much confidence. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
We just migrated from Innovative's Sierra to OCLC's WorldShare Management Systems several months ago. We knew we would lose a lot of the functionality we had in Sierra, but I'm surprised that OCLC's product -- although relatively young -- is still so underdeveloped (for example, Course Reserves is just now being implemented -- and not very well-- in WorldCat Discovery). We also continue to deal with multiple catalog and linking problems. While OCLC has a lot of training resources, those resources are not updated quickly enough after changes are made to the system, and actual documentation on using WMS is sorely lacking. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)
Although there are still some areas where OCLC WorldShare Management Services/Discovery could be improved, OCLC is constantly adding features and fixing bugs. Also, their customer support is very responsive, and they have many training materials available for free. There's always room for improvement, but in this case, not much room--they're doing nearly everything already. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
I'm new to the Library and I don't know the answers to some of these questions, but [...] s migrating to Alma and there is discussion of the [..] will do the same. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
OCLC is aware that they needed to revamp their customer service processes and I have been informed that this is something they are working on and that it is a high priority issue. Overall customer service if not reporting an issue is okay, but responsiveness to queries sent to specific staff at OCLC is not always timely. I firmly believe that OCLC will resolve any customer service issues. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Very integrated product; much less expensive than our former system; easy to use, and easy to train others; pace of improvements of interest to our library seems to be in a lull at the moment, still need a few features for fully efficient operation. Most features we initially wanted have now been implemented. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We would be forced to consider OCLC again if we migrated to another system because of cost constraints. While the vision that OCLC puts forth for its products is headed in the right direction, the software has a LONG way to go before it covers all of the "usual" functionality expectations a library has for its ILS. Technical support is VERY inconsistent. Sometimes I receive answers the same day, other times it takes months. And often, I don't receive follow up unless I "poke" them periodically. We currently use WorldCat Local with plans to transition to WorldCat Discovery summer of 2016. While we do consider this "our discovery product," it does NOT work effectively at this time. The relevancy ranking algorithm is very poor at this point. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)
We anticipate working with OCLC Worldshare Mangement System for the forseeable future. We are a very small staff and do not have the knowledge or staff time to consider an open source product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Very pleased with WMS, though still struggling with OpenURL resolver, which does not appear to be fully compliant with standards. KB is not that bad -- it's a big job keeping up with vendors. Looking forward to Discovery next year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
OCLC is still learning how to be a good ILS vendor, but the cooperative business model reduces some of the very negative, profit-driven aspects of commercial vendors owned by venture capitalists. Overall, OCLC has been good to work with and the WMS product is continuing to mature in good directions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We continue to be extremely satisfied with our decision to implement WMS, and have been pleased with the OCLC's responsiveness to library needs as development continues. Where we are less than completely satisfied with functionality, we are still extremely satisfied with the pace of improvement and added features. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
WorldCat is powerful. WMS integrates nicely with it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
While OCLC is very service oriented, it seems as if recently there has been significant turnover and re-organization that has happened often. This is likely the cause of a perception of lower service. Their foray into the cloud is also very new. There is concern that they are growing too quickly with new customers on WMS but not resolving the changes needed for their existing customers. Speed, consistent interface design, and training/documentation seem to have taken a hit. I expected a better roll out of the Report Designer tool and the COUNTER harvesting tool. These tools seem to have been provided pre-maturely either due to a lack of full training materials and documentation, or have not been fully developed and tested such that they are not useful yet. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Currently we are finishing the migration process from Innovative's Sierra to OCLC's WMS. We decided to move from Innovative because of system security issues with the Innovative software. We were impressed by the cooperative nature of WMS and the reduction in duplicate work. WMS doesn't have all the functionality that Sierra has, but is evolving very quickly and we anticipate it meeting our needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We appreciate the cooperative aspect of OCLC and their genuinely listening to what libraries need and delivering at a price point libraries can afford. We hope for improvements to the WMS system, especially in the area of the knowledge base and e-resources management. We would also like to see group-aware features and usability improvements to WorldCat Discovery. However, we are pleased with the development progress already made. Our library is operating well with current functionality. Uptime and dependability of hosted systems this past year has been less than expected and is/should be OCLC's top concern. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
OCLC is very responsive to service problems and is very open to communication about it. We are very pleased with their response and communication. However, the search interface for WMS/Discovery is not very good yet; too many results and not easy to narrow down. They are working on improvements to the interface. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
[...] switched from III Millennium to OCLC WMS in July of 2015. III simply priced itself so high for needed upgrades that we were forced to investigate other options. WMS has been a huge disappointment to those of us in Technical Services. The serials and acquisitions functionality is VERY limited. OCLC appears to have purchased Navigator from another company and is unable at present to make it function with their discovery system, forcing us to remain on their older system, WorldCat local - which they are no longer updating. This situation results in our having to invent work-arounds for many desired functions. Though we have requested a time-line for resolution to the Navigator/Discovery programming situation many times, no answer is forthcoming. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
WorldShare is a new "next generation" system and as such does not yet have all of the functionality of the older more mature systems. This said, the enhancement roadmap is very comprehensive and there is a lot that is being implemented, and as this is a cloud based system, the library does not have to do the upgrades. By migrating to a system that hangs off the global bib record we have been able to implement massive back end workflow efficiencies, and we are able to work collaboratively with other libraries even though we are not part of a consortia. Moving to WorldShare has also firmly positioned us in the emerging semantic linked data ecosystem. With WorldShare we are the first library to start adding the machine readable Australian curriculum metadata that was registered by the Library of Congress in November 2015 https://www.loc.gov/standards/sourcelist/curriculum-objective.html. WorldShare gives superior reporting, patrons find it easier to use, and it has enabled us to integrate our library collections into Google and GoodReads. (Library type: School; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
It is the perception of some colleagues and me that the link resolver capabilities of the system need improving. Sometimes items that should be linked are not linked, other times links lead to the wrong item, and sometimes items that should not be linked are linked. There is not a 100% match of what is held in prescribed databases and what is represented in the knowledgebase. For this reason we cannot totally rely on the WMS A-Z list. We must continue to pay for and use Serial Solutions 360 link in addition to the WMS A-Z list/knowledgbase/collection manager. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Overall staff find WMS easy to use and easy to train people on. The main criticism that staff have voiced is the fact that we cannot change certain default settings (especially in the acquisitions module) that seem to be geared toward larger multi-site library systems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Regarding vendor supports, OCLC's establishment of the user community this year has been a valuable addition to their services platform. The ability we now have to participate in threaded discussions around WMS/WS Discovery/WS ILL issues has greatly improved our effectiveness. The reorganization of support documentation and video training within the community portal is also appreciated. The addition of hosted EZ Proxy to this community is welcome, as well. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Does number of items include print and electronic resources? And is there a distinction between owned electronic items and subscribed items? The above number is from the OCLC Analytics module, total holdings for my library. Not sure if I used this number last year. Apologies if it's not useful. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Migrated to WMS & Discovery in summer of 2015. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
We continue to weed print items so how our ILS handles digital materials is becoming more important every year. We LOVE the analytics we now can access using the WMS add-on that we purchased. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
We would not use an open source ILS only because we do not have the staff to manage it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Since we are new with OCLC Worldshare, we still learning daily about the capabilities of the system. There have been a few issues with the search capabilities through Discovery, however we are optimistic that OCLC will work through the glitches of this new product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
June 2015 migrated from WC Local to WC Discovery. The discovery system as well as the WorldShare ILS continue to develop. Their potential surpasses earlier generation systems, although enhancements can be frustratingly slow. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
Our library is transitioning from Voyager to World Share Management Services. The transition is not complete so I am unable to answer the questions above until we have more experince with the system and the company. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small)
There is no perfect ILS and I feel that we have to be a part of the solution by migrating to a system with potential. I am somewhat happy with my ILS system and vendor and think the service can only get better or at least I am optomistic in that regard. The new system is different in a good way so when comparing the two it is not apples to apples. Thanks for your work! (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)
WMS not quite ready for larger academic libraries. Kind of like living in a house that is still being built around us. There are some OpenURL linking issues; the vendor has been responsive to our complaints and suggestions but it is not completely resolved. Worldcat Discovery was released too early; we believe more development was needed--functions like relevancy in the results and the need for more facet options need improvement, as well as allowing patrons to do more on their accounts. eResource management is much better than our old ILS (the old one simply did not support it). eResource workflow management functionality in WMS is still very rudimentary; we continue to rely on a hodgepodge set of various tools and systems (i.e excel spreedsheets, LibAnswers, eResource email, Trello). The new reporting system is quite good but there is a small learning curve. Circulation works reliably, authentication with our campus system is seamless, and more info is at your fingertips. Managing WMS in the cloud is much more streamlined than the old systems but has potential to be great if improved. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Lately I feel that OCLC has rolled things out that should have stayed in development longer. Particularly with WorldCat Discovery. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
OCLC has been very responsive to our suggestions and requests for improvements. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
|
|
|