Statistical Report for Apollo
2022 Survey Results |
Product: Apollo |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 88 |
| | | | | | 2 | 12 | 22 | 52 | 9 | 8.41 | 9 |
ILS Functionality | 89 |
| | | | | 1 | 3 | 12 | 23 | 50 | 9 | 8.33 | 9 |
Print Functionality | 88 |
| | | | | | 4 | 6 | 26 | 52 | 9 | 8.43 | 9 |
Electronic Functionality | 85 |
3 | | | | | 3 | 6 | 14 | 15 | 44 | 9 | 7.82 | 9 |
Company Satisfaction | 89 |
| | | | | 1 | 2 | 10 | 19 | 57 | 9 | 8.45 | 9 |
Support Satisfaction | 86 |
| | 1 | | | 1 | 1 | 7 | 17 | 59 | 9 | 8.48 | 9 |
Support Improvement | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
Company Loyalty | 89 |
| | | | | 5 | 3 | 9 | 13 | 59 | 9 | 8.33 | 9 |
Open Source Interest | 84 |
34 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 18 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2.81 | 2 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 91 |
2 | 2.20% |
Considering new Interface | 91 |
0 | 0.00% |
System Installed on time? | 91 |
0 | 0.00% |
Average Collection size: |
| 39328 |
Type | Count |
Public | 87 |
Academic | 0 |
School | 0 |
Consortium | 0 |
Special | 1 |
Size Category | Count |
[1] Under 10,000 | 8 |
[2] 10,001-100,000 | 69 |
[3] 100,001-250,000 | 10 |
[4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
[6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
2021 Survey Results |
Product: Apollo |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 107 |
| | | 1 | | | | 7 | 28 | 71 | 9 | 8.55 | 9 |
ILS Functionality | 107 |
| | | 1 | | | 3 | 5 | 40 | 58 | 9 | 8.39 | 9 |
Print Functionality | 106 |
1 | | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 7 | 28 | 66 | 9 | 8.33 | 9 |
Electronic Functionality | 103 |
| 2 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 6 | 14 | 24 | 54 | 9 | 8.01 | 9 |
Company Satisfaction | 105 |
1 | 1 | | | | 1 | 1 | 3 | 24 | 74 | 9 | 8.49 | 9 |
Support Satisfaction | 105 |
| 1 | | | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 28 | 68 | 9 | 8.44 | 9 |
Support Improvement | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
Company Loyalty | 105 |
| | 1 | | 1 | | | 6 | 22 | 75 | 9 | 8.56 | 9 |
Open Source Interest | 99 |
48 | 8 | 11 | 4 | 3 | 14 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2.10 | 1 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 110 |
3 | 2.73% |
Considering new Interface | 110 |
0 | 0.00% |
System Installed on time? | 110 |
0 | 0.00% |
Average Collection size: |
| 38192 |
Type | Count |
Public | 103 |
Academic | 0 |
School | 0 |
Consortium | 0 |
Special | 0 |
Size Category | Count |
[1] Under 10,000 | 5 |
[2] 10,001-100,000 | 96 |
[3] 100,001-250,000 | 9 |
[4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
[6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
2020 Survey Results |
Product: Apollo |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 84 |
| | | | | 2 | | 2 | 22 | 58 | 9 | 8.60 | 9 |
ILS Functionality | 83 |
| | | | | 2 | | 6 | 30 | 45 | 9 | 8.40 | 9 |
Print Functionality | 83 |
| | | | | 3 | | 2 | 28 | 50 | 9 | 8.47 | 9 |
Electronic Functionality | 83 |
| 1 | | | 1 | 5 | 2 | 8 | 23 | 43 | 9 | 8.06 | 9 |
Company Satisfaction | 82 |
| | | | | 1 | | 2 | 17 | 62 | 9 | 8.70 | 9 |
Support Satisfaction | 83 |
| | | | | 4 | | 3 | 15 | 61 | 9 | 8.55 | 9 |
Support Improvement | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
Company Loyalty | 84 |
2 | | | | | 2 | 1 | 4 | 16 | 59 | 9 | 8.37 | 9 |
Open Source Interest | 74 |
37 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 0 | 1.76 | 1 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 88 |
1 | 1.14% |
Considering new Interface | 88 |
0 | 0.00% |
System Installed on time? | 88 |
0 | 0.00% |
Average Collection size: |
| 38318 |
Type | Count |
Public | 88 |
Academic | 0 |
School | 0 |
Consortium | 0 |
Special | 0 |
Size Category | Count |
[1] Under 10,000 | 4 |
[2] 10,001-100,000 | 76 |
[3] 100,001-250,000 | 6 |
[4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
[6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
2019 Survey Results |
Product: Apollo |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 100 |
| | | | | | 2 | 10 | 26 | 62 | 9 | 8.48 | 9 |
ILS Functionality | 98 |
| | | | 1 | 1 | 4 | 11 | 30 | 51 | 9 | 8.26 | 9 |
Print Functionality | 99 |
| | | | | 2 | 1 | 9 | 27 | 60 | 9 | 8.43 | 9 |
Electronic Functionality | 97 |
3 | | | | 1 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 31 | 46 | 9 | 7.96 | 8 |
Company Satisfaction | 100 |
| | | | | | 2 | 3 | 23 | 72 | 9 | 8.65 | 9 |
Support Satisfaction | 99 |
| | | | | 2 | 2 | 2 | 21 | 72 | 9 | 8.61 | 9 |
Support Improvement | 95 |
| | | | 2 | 15 | 5 | 8 | 16 | 49 | 9 | 7.77 | 9 |
Company Loyalty | 94 |
1 | | | | 1 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 18 | 61 | 9 | 8.21 | 9 |
Open Source Interest | 94 |
47 | 4 | 14 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2.12 | 1 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 102 |
2 | 1.96% |
Considering new Interface | 102 |
1 | 0.98% |
System Installed on time? | 102 |
91 | 89.22% |
Average Collection size: |
| 36611 |
Type | Count |
Public | 101 |
Academic | 0 |
School | 0 |
Consortium | 1 |
Special | 0 |
Size Category | Count |
[1] Under 10,000 | 4 |
[2] 10,001-100,000 | 91 |
[3] 100,001-250,000 | 7 |
[4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
[6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
2018 Survey Results |
Product: Apollo |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 112 |
| | | | | 1 | 2 | 11 | 31 | 67 | 9 | 8.44 | 9 |
ILS Functionality | 112 |
| | | | | 1 | 5 | 11 | 40 | 55 | 9 | 8.28 | 8 |
Print Functionality | 111 |
2 | | | | 1 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 30 | 63 | 9 | 8.20 | 9 |
Electronic Functionality | 110 |
1 | | | | | 4 | 7 | 17 | 37 | 44 | 9 | 7.94 | 8 |
Company Satisfaction | 109 |
| | | | | 1 | 1 | 8 | 19 | 80 | 9 | 8.61 | 9 |
Support Satisfaction | 109 |
| | | 1 | | 1 | 2 | 8 | 21 | 76 | 9 | 8.51 | 9 |
Support Improvement | 109 |
1 | | | 1 | 6 | 17 | 6 | 9 | 21 | 48 | 9 | 7.44 | 8 |
Company Loyalty | 110 |
| | | | | 2 | 3 | 11 | 21 | 73 | 9 | 8.45 | 9 |
Open Source Interest | 106 |
58 | 9 | 9 | 5 | 9 | 10 | 4 | | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1.59 | 0 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 112 |
3 | 2.68% |
Considering new Interface | 112 |
2 | 1.79% |
System Installed on time? | 112 |
109 | 97.32% |
Average Collection size: |
| 34660 |
Type | Count |
Public | 109 |
Academic | 0 |
School | 0 |
Consortium | 1 |
Special | 0 |
Size Category | Count |
[1] Under 10,000 | 11 |
[2] 10,001-100,000 | 96 |
[3] 100,001-250,000 | 5 |
[4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
[6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
2017 Survey Results |
Product: Apollo |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 131 |
| | | | 1 | | 5 | 6 | 32 | 87 | 9 | 8.51 | 9 |
ILS Functionality | 130 |
| | | | 1 | 1 | 4 | 13 | 48 | 63 | 9 | 8.27 | 8 |
Print Functionality | 131 |
2 | | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 33 | 79 | 9 | 8.19 | 9 |
Electronic Functionality | 130 |
3 | | | | 2 | 3 | 6 | 12 | 40 | 64 | 9 | 7.99 | 8 |
Company Satisfaction | 131 |
| | | | 2 | | 2 | 8 | 25 | 94 | 9 | 8.56 | 9 |
Support Satisfaction | 129 |
| | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 8 | 19 | 98 | 9 | 8.57 | 9 |
Support Improvement | 124 |
| 1 | | 1 | 3 | 25 | 4 | 9 | 20 | 61 | 9 | 7.56 | 8 |
Company Loyalty | 130 |
| | 1 | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 16 | 97 | 9 | 8.50 | 9 |
Open Source Interest | 130 |
73 | 9 | 15 | 7 | 12 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1.49 | 0 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 134 |
0 | 0.00% |
Considering new Interface | 134 |
2 | 1.49% |
System Installed on time? | 134 |
127 | 94.78% |
Average Collection size: |
| 31609 |
Type | Count |
Public | 133 |
Academic | 0 |
School | 0 |
Consortium | 0 |
Special | 0 |
Size Category | Count |
[1] Under 10,000 | 13 |
[2] 10,001-100,000 | 116 |
[3] 100,001-250,000 | 5 |
[4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
[6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
2016 Survey Results |
Product: Apollo |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 102 |
| 1 | | | | 1 | 2 | 5 | 23 | 70 | 9 | 8.50 | 9 |
ILS Functionality | 103 |
| 1 | | | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 31 | 60 | 9 | 8.33 | 9 |
Print Functionality | 103 |
1 | | | | 1 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 23 | 69 | 9 | 8.42 | 9 |
Electronic Functionality | 103 |
3 | | | | | 3 | 2 | 10 | 25 | 60 | 9 | 8.13 | 9 |
Company Satisfaction | 102 |
1 | | | | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 17 | 78 | 9 | 8.54 | 9 |
Support Satisfaction | 102 |
1 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 2 | | 2 | 14 | 80 | 9 | 8.47 | 9 |
Support Improvement | 98 |
2 | | 1 | 1 | 3 | 15 | | 8 | 16 | 52 | 9 | 7.59 | 9 |
Company Loyalty | 102 |
4 | | 1 | | 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 19 | 69 | 9 | 8.07 | 9 |
Open Source Interest | 102 |
44 | 17 | 10 | 5 | 14 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1.82 | 1 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 106 |
1 | 0.94% |
Considering new Interface | 106 |
1 | 0.94% |
System Installed on time? | 106 |
102 | 96.23% |
Average Collection size: |
| 32330 |
Type | Count |
Public | 106 |
Academic | 0 |
School | 0 |
Consortium | 0 |
Special | 0 |
Size Category | Count |
[1] Under 10,000 | 6 |
[2] 10,001-100,000 | 95 |
[3] 100,001-250,000 | 4 |
[4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
[6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
Statistics according to type and size categories
The following table presents the 2015 results according to the type and size of the library.
Apollo | all | Academic | Public | School | Consortium |
| | small | medium | large | small | medium | large | | |
| n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg | n | avg |
SatisfactionLevelILS | 110 | 8.63 |
0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 110 | 8.63 | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
ILSFunctionality | 109 | 8.48 |
0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 109 | 8.48 | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
PrintFunctionality | 110 | 8.54 |
0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 110 | 8.54 | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
ElectronicFunctionality | 105 | 8.17 |
0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 105 | 8.17 | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 109 | 8.78 |
0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 109 | 8.78 | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
CompanyLoyalty | 108 | 8.38 |
0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 108 | 8.38 | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | | 0 | |
2015 Survey Results |
Product: Apollo |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 110 |
| | | | | 1 | | 7 | 23 | 79 | 9 | 8.63 | 9 |
ILS Functionality | 109 |
| | | | | 1 | 2 | 7 | 33 | 66 | 9 | 8.48 | 9 |
Print Functionality | 110 |
| 1 | | | | 1 | 2 | 5 | 23 | 78 | 9 | 8.54 | 9 |
Electronic Functionality | 105 |
2 | 1 | | | | 2 | 4 | 9 | 23 | 64 | 9 | 8.17 | 9 |
Company Satisfaction | 110 |
| | | | 1 | | | 4 | 18 | 87 | 9 | 8.72 | 9 |
Support Satisfaction | 109 |
| | | | | | | 5 | 14 | 90 | 9 | 8.78 | 9 |
Support Improvement | 105 |
| | | | 2 | 16 | 2 | 5 | 17 | 63 | 9 | 7.98 | 9 |
Company Loyalty | 108 |
3 | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 16 | 83 | 9 | 8.38 | 9 |
Open Source Interest | 104 |
53 | 11 | 11 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 3 | | 4 | 0 | 1.72 | 0 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 113 |
4 | 3.54% |
Considering new Interface | 113 |
3 | 2.65% |
System Installed on time? | 113 |
106 | 93.81% |
Average Collection size: |
| 29898 |
Type | Count |
Public | 113 |
Academic | 0 |
School | 0 |
Consortium | 0 |
Special | 0 |
Size Category | Count |
[1] Under 10,000 | 9 |
[2] 10,001-100,000 | 101 |
[3] 100,001-250,000 | 3 |
[4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
[6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
2014 Survey Results |
Product: Apollo |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 73 |
| | | | | 1 | | 6 | 19 | 47 | 9 | 8.52 | 9 |
ILS Functionality | 73 |
| | | | | 1 | 2 | 5 | 32 | 33 | 9 | 8.29 | 8 |
Print Functionality | 73 |
| | | | 1 | | 2 | 3 | 19 | 48 | 9 | 8.51 | 9 |
Electronic Functionality | 70 |
| | | | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 22 | 38 | 9 | 8.27 | 9 |
Company Satisfaction | 73 |
| | | | | 1 | | 4 | 17 | 51 | 9 | 8.60 | 9 |
Support Satisfaction | 72 |
| | | 1 | | | 1 | 1 | 15 | 54 | 9 | 8.64 | 9 |
Support Improvement | 71 |
| | | 1 | 3 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 16 | 38 | 9 | 7.85 | 9 |
Company Loyalty | 72 |
| | | | 1 | | | 2 | 12 | 57 | 9 | 8.71 | 9 |
Open Source Interest | 70 |
34 | 10 | 7 | 2 | 8 | 5 | | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1.71 | 1 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 74 |
0 | 0.00% |
Considering new Interface | 74 |
0 | 0.00% |
System Installed on time? | 74 |
71 | 95.95% |
Average Collection size: |
| 25299 |
Type | Count |
Public | 74 |
Academic | 0 |
School | 0 |
Consortium | 0 |
Special | 0 |
Size Category | Count |
[1] Under 10,000 | 6 |
[2] 10,001-100,000 | 67 |
[3] 100,001-250,000 | 0 |
[4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
[6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
2013 Survey Results |
Product: Apollo |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 54 |
| | | | 1 | | | 3 | 14 | 36 | 9 | 8.54 | 9 |
ILS Functionality | 54 |
| | | | | 1 | 1 | 4 | 17 | 31 | 9 | 8.41 | 9 |
Print Functionality | 53 |
| | | | | | 1 | 3 | 15 | 34 | 9 | 8.55 | 9 |
Electronic Functionality | 53 |
| 1 | | | | | 1 | 9 | 8 | 34 | 9 | 8.30 | 9 |
Company Satisfaction | 54 |
| | | | | 1 | | 2 | 8 | 43 | 9 | 8.70 | 9 |
Support Satisfaction | 54 |
| | | | | 1 | | 1 | 9 | 43 | 9 | 8.72 | 9 |
Support Improvement | 53 |
| | | | 1 | 11 | | 3 | 6 | 32 | 9 | 7.85 | 9 |
Company Loyalty | 53 |
1 | | | | | | 1 | 1 | 8 | 42 | 9 | 8.58 | 9 |
Open Source Interest | 52 |
25 | 6 | 5 | | 5 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2.04 | 1 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 54 |
0 | 0.00% |
Considering new Interface | 54 |
0 | 0.00% |
System Installed on time? | 54 |
54 | 100.00% |
Average Collection size: |
| 30980 |
Type | Count |
Public | 54 |
Academic | 0 |
School | 0 |
Consortium | 0 |
Special | 0 |
Size Category | Count |
[1] Under 10,000 | 7 |
[2] 10,001-100,000 | 46 |
[3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
[4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
[6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
2012 Survey Results |
Product: Apollo |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 114 |
| | | | | 1 | 1 | 11 | 23 | 78 | 9 | 8.54 | 9 |
ILS Functionality | 114 |
| | | | | | 2 | 15 | 27 | 70 | 9 | 8.45 | 9 |
Print Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
Electronic Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
Company Satisfaction | 113 |
| | | | | 2 | | 3 | 18 | 90 | 9 | 8.72 | 9 |
Support Satisfaction | 114 |
| | | | | | | 5 | 18 | 91 | 9 | 8.75 | 9 |
Support Improvement | 111 |
| | | | | 15 | 6 | 12 | 16 | 62 | 9 | 7.94 | 9 |
Company Loyalty | 112 |
3 | | | | | | 4 | 6 | 19 | 80 | 9 | 8.38 | 9 |
Open Source Interest | 112 |
58 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 5 | 13 | 1 | 1 | | 6 | 0 | 1.84 | 0 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 118 |
0 | 0.00% |
Considering new Interface | 118 |
0 | 0.00% |
System Installed on time? | 118 |
114 | 96.61% |
Average Collection size: |
| 25686 |
Type | Count |
Public | 118 |
Academic | 0 |
School | 0 |
Consortium | 0 |
Special | 0 |
Size Category | Count |
[1] Under 10,000 | 17 |
[2] 10,001-100,000 | 99 |
[3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
[4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
[6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
2011 Survey Results |
Product: Apollo |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 53 |
| | | | | | 1 | 4 | 10 | 38 | 9 | 8.60 | 9 |
ILS Functionality | 52 |
| | | | | 1 | 3 | 1 | 17 | 30 | 9 | 8.38 | 9 |
Print Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
Electronic Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
Company Satisfaction | 53 |
| | | | | | 1 | 2 | 11 | 39 | 9 | 8.66 | 9 |
Support Satisfaction | 53 |
| | | | | | | 4 | 9 | 40 | 9 | 8.68 | 9 |
Support Improvement | 50 |
| | | 1 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 27 | 9 | 7.82 | 9 |
Company Loyalty | 53 |
| | | | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 5 | 45 | 9 | 8.70 | 9 |
Open Source Interest | 51 |
22 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2.24 | 1 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 54 |
0 | 0.00% |
Considering new Interface | 54 |
0 | 0.00% |
System Installed on time? | 54 |
52 | 96.30% |
Average Collection size: |
| 32723 |
Type | Count |
Public | 53 |
Academic | 0 |
School | 0 |
Consortium | 0 |
Special | 0 |
Size Category | Count |
[1] Under 10,000 | 4 |
[2] 10,001-100,000 | 46 |
[3] 100,001-250,000 | 3 |
[4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
[6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
2010 Survey Results |
Product: Apollo |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 81 |
| | | | | | 2 | 7 | 14 | 58 | 9 | 8.58 | 9 |
ILS Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
Print Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
Electronic Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
Company Satisfaction | 81 |
| | | | | 1 | 1 | 3 | 10 | 66 | 9 | 8.72 | 9 |
Support Satisfaction | 81 |
| | | | | 2 | 1 | | 9 | 69 | 9 | 8.75 | 9 |
Support Improvement | 80 |
| | | | | 7 | 1 | 11 | 11 | 50 | 9 | 8.20 | 9 |
Company Loyalty | 81 |
| | | 1 | | 1 | | 3 | 8 | 68 | 9 | 8.70 | 9 |
Open Source Interest | 78 |
34 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 1 | | | 4 | 0 | 2.08 | 1 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 84 |
0 | 0.00% |
Considering new Interface | 84 |
0 | 0.00% |
System Installed on time? | 84 |
79 | 94.05% |
Average Collection size: |
| 30799 |
Type | Count |
Public | 84 |
Academic | 0 |
School | 0 |
Consortium | 0 |
Special | 0 |
Size Category | Count |
[1] Under 10,000 | 3 |
[2] 10,001-100,000 | 78 |
[3] 100,001-250,000 | 1 |
[4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 0 |
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 0 |
[6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
2009 Survey Results |
Product: Apollo |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 35 |
| | | | | | | 6 | 10 | 19 | 9 | 8.37 | 9 |
ILS Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
Print Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
Electronic Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
Company Satisfaction | 35 |
| | | | | | | | 7 | 28 | 9 | 8.80 | 9 |
Support Satisfaction | 35 |
| | | | | | | 1 | 5 | 29 | 9 | 8.80 | 9 |
Support Improvement | 31 |
| | | | | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 19 | 9 | 8.42 | 9 |
Company Loyalty | 35 |
| | | | | | 1 | 1 | 3 | 30 | 9 | 8.77 | 9 |
Open Source Interest | 35 |
14 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2.54 | 1 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 35 |
0 | 0.00% |
Considering new Interface | 35 |
2 | 5.71% |
System Installed on time? | 35 |
34 | 97.14% |
2008 Survey Results |
Product: Apollo |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 7 |
| | | | | | | 1 | 4 | 2 | 8 | 8.14 | 8 |
ILS Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
Print Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
Electronic Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
Company Satisfaction | 7 |
| | | | | | | 1 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 8.29 | 8 |
Support Satisfaction | 7 |
| | | | | | | 1 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 8.29 | 8 |
Support Improvement | 0 |
not applicable |
Company Loyalty | 7 |
| | | | | | | 2 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 8.14 | 8 |
Open Source Interest | 6 |
3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | | | | | 0 | 1.00 | 1 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 7 |
0 | 0.00% |
Considering new Interface | 7 |
0 | 0.00% |
System Installed on time? | 7 |
6 | 85.71% |
2007 Survey Results |
Product: Apollo |
Response Distribution |
Statistics |
Category | Responses |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Mode | Mean | Median |
ILS Satisfaction | 4 |
| | | | | | | | 3 | 1 | 8 | 8.25 | 8 |
ILS Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
Print Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
Electronic Functionality | 0 |
| | | | | | | | | | 0 | 0.00 | |
Company Satisfaction | 7 |
| | | | | | | | 2 | 5 | 9 | 8.71 | 9 |
Support Satisfaction | 7 |
| | | | | | | 1 | 1 | 5 | 9 | 8.57 | 9 |
Support Improvement | 0 |
not applicable |
Company Loyalty | 7 |
| | | | | | | | 2 | 5 | 9 | 8.71 | 9 |
Open Source Interest | 7 |
2 | | | | 1 | 2 | 1 | | | 1 | 0 | 4.14 | 5 |
Category | Total | Yes | percent |
Considering new ILS | 7 |
0 | 0.00% |
Considering new Interface | 7 |
0 | 0.00% |
System Installed on time? | 7 |
1 | 14.29% |
2022 : gen: 8.41 company 8.45 loyalty 8.33 support 8.48
2021 : gen: 8.55 company 8.49 loyalty 8.56 support 8.44
2020 : gen: 8.60 company 8.70 loyalty 8.37 support 8.55
2019 : gen: 8.48 company 8.65 loyalty 8.21 support 8.61
2018 : gen: 8.44 company 8.61 loyalty 8.45 support 8.51
2017 : gen: 8.51 company 8.56 loyalty 8.50 support 8.57
2016 : gen: 8.50 company 8.54 loyalty 8.07 support 8.47
2015 : gen: 8.63 company 8.72 loyalty 8.38 support 8.78
2014 : gen: 8.52 company 8.60 loyalty 8.71 support 8.64
2013 : gen: 8.54 company 8.70 loyalty 8.58 support 8.72
2012 : gen: 8.54 company 8.72 loyalty 8.38 support 8.75
2011 : gen: 8.60 company 8.66 loyalty 8.70 support 8.68
2010 : gen: 8.58 company 8.72 loyalty 8.70 support 8.75
2009 : gen: 8.37 company 8.80 loyalty 8.77 support 8.80
2008 : gen: 8.14 company 8.29 loyalty 8.14 support 8.29
2007 : gen: 8.25 company 8.71 loyalty 8.71 support 8.57
Comments
Biblionix continues to exceed the already high expectations they've set. They are extraordinarily response to requests for help and ideas for enhancements.
(Type: Public)
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.
(Type: Public)
Biblionix is receptive to recommendations, has amazing customer service and offers great assistance on the rare occasion that it is necessary.
(Type: Public)
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!
(Type: Public)
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.
(Type: Public)
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.
(Type: Public)
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.
(Type: Public)
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.
(Type: Public)
Very pleased with how simple and efficient Apollo works. Would highly recommend it.
(Type: Public)
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.
(Type: Public)
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.
(Type: Public)
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.
(Type: Public)
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.
(Type: Public)
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!
(Type: Public)
We continue to be impressed with Biblionix's responsiveness to ours and other customers' needs.
(Type: Public)
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.
(Type: Public)
[...]
(Type: Public)
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.
(Type: Public)
Apollo is great. I see little reason to mess with what works so very well.
(Type: Public)
We are very satisfied with Apollo.
(Type: Public)
We are very happy with the Apollo system from Biblionix. Their customer service is excellent.
(Type: Public)
We've had exceptional service from the Apollo Biblionix team and are absolutely enjoying their seamless product! They make our job so very easy.
(Type: Public)
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 -
(Type: Public)
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.
(Type: Public)
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.
(Type: Public)
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).
(Type: Public)
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.
(Type: Public)
Very user friendly and adaptive to our needs.
(Type: Public)
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.
(Type: Public)
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!)
(Type: Public)
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.
(Type: Public)
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.
(Type: Public)
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.
(Type: Public)