| 2024 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Polaris | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 100 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 10 | 22 | 40 | 22 | 8 | 7.56 | 8 | |||
| ILS Functionality | 100 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 32 | 33 | 21 | 8 | 7.46 | 8 | ||
| Print Functionality | 100 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 15 | 40 | 36 | 8 | 7.97 | 8 | ||||
| Electronic Functionality | 99 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 14 | 27 | 19 | 10 | 7 | 6.20 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 99 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 11 | 22 | 32 | 18 | 8 | 7.05 | 8 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 99 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 9 | 10 | 17 | 31 | 23 | 8 | 7.05 | 8 | |
| Support Improvement | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 100 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 18 | 31 | 28 | 8 | 7.19 | 8 | |
| Open Source Interest | 93 | 30 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 13 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 3.38 | 2 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 102 | 7 | 6.86% |
| Considering new Interface | 102 | 9 | 8.82% |
| System Installed on time? | 102 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Average Collection size: | 738390 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 71 |
| Academic | 5 |
| School | 1 |
| Consortium | 10 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 2 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 31 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 26 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 23 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 16 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2023 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Polaris | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 134 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 12 | 41 | 48 | 23 | 8 | 7.36 | 8 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 133 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 14 | 42 | 46 | 23 | 8 | 7.44 | 8 | |||
| Print Functionality | 133 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 29 | 61 | 33 | 8 | 7.84 | 8 | ||||
| Electronic Functionality | 133 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 9 | 12 | 31 | 19 | 26 | 21 | 6 | 6.32 | 6 |
| Company Satisfaction | 133 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 12 | 14 | 41 | 33 | 19 | 7 | 6.81 | 7 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 130 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 13 | 13 | 32 | 31 | 27 | 7 | 6.89 | 7 | |
| Support Improvement | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 131 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 17 | 19 | 41 | 28 | 8 | 6.90 | 8 |
| Open Source Interest | 125 | 36 | 10 | 14 | 10 | 7 | 25 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 3.21 | 2 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 137 | 5 | 3.65% |
| Considering new Interface | 137 | 0 | 0.00% |
| System Installed on time? | 137 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Average Collection size: | 558515 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 113 |
| Academic | 4 |
| School | 1 |
| Consortium | 14 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 2 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 46 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 28 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 32 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 21 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2022 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Polaris | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 163 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 14 | 55 | 46 | 37 | 7 | 7.40 | 8 | |
| ILS Functionality | 162 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 15 | 44 | 55 | 38 | 8 | 7.53 | 8 | |||
| Print Functionality | 162 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 10 | 34 | 58 | 54 | 8 | 7.87 | 8 | |||
| Electronic Functionality | 161 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 12 | 8 | 17 | 24 | 43 | 23 | 19 | 7 | 6.04 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 161 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 14 | 24 | 38 | 35 | 38 | 7 | 7.07 | 7 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 157 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 14 | 18 | 31 | 44 | 35 | 8 | 7.06 | 8 | |
| Support Improvement | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 161 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 23 | 9 | 32 | 39 | 41 | 9 | 6.88 | 7 |
| Open Source Interest | 158 | 51 | 7 | 15 | 12 | 10 | 34 | 11 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 0 | 3.15 | 3 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 171 | 8 | 4.68% |
| Considering new Interface | 171 | 1 | 0.58% |
| System Installed on time? | 171 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Average Collection size: | 443509 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 148 |
| Academic | 7 |
| School | 1 |
| Consortium | 9 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 6 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 65 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 38 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 35 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 17 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2021 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Polaris | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 176 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 16 | 45 | 64 | 41 | 8 | 7.57 | 8 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 176 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 18 | 51 | 60 | 40 | 8 | 7.55 | 8 | |||
| Print Functionality | 173 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 33 | 67 | 57 | 8 | 7.83 | 8 | ||
| Electronic Functionality | 171 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 14 | 16 | 26 | 44 | 28 | 23 | 7 | 6.26 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 174 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 21 | 49 | 50 | 33 | 8 | 7.18 | 7 | ||
| Support Satisfaction | 171 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 23 | 40 | 47 | 42 | 8 | 7.31 | 8 | ||
| Support Improvement | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 175 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 13 | 15 | 34 | 46 | 51 | 9 | 7.26 | 8 | |
| Open Source Interest | 153 | 47 | 17 | 14 | 10 | 9 | 23 | 12 | 11 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3.06 | 2 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 184 | 13 | 7.07% |
| Considering new Interface | 184 | 0 | 0.00% |
| System Installed on time? | 184 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Average Collection size: | 594603 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 144 |
| Academic | 8 |
| School | 1 |
| Consortium | 12 |
| Special | 1 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 4 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 78 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 44 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 33 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 17 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 2 |
| 2020 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Polaris | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 158 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 13 | 41 | 64 | 29 | 8 | 7.46 | 8 | |
| ILS Functionality | 157 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 16 | 45 | 50 | 32 | 8 | 7.34 | 8 |
| Print Functionality | 158 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 29 | 67 | 47 | 8 | 7.84 | 8 | ||
| Electronic Functionality | 155 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 18 | 40 | 37 | 26 | 13 | 6 | 6.21 | 6 |
| Company Satisfaction | 154 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 26 | 35 | 49 | 24 | 8 | 7.11 | 7 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 148 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 15 | 13 | 31 | 40 | 40 | 8 | 7.31 | 8 | |
| Support Improvement | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 154 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 12 | 16 | 37 | 42 | 36 | 8 | 7.10 | 8 | |
| Open Source Interest | 137 | 46 | 17 | 14 | 9 | 5 | 19 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 2.76 | 2 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 164 | 12 | 7.32% |
| Considering new Interface | 164 | 0 | 0.00% |
| System Installed on time? | 164 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Average Collection size: | 630672 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 142 |
| Academic | 6 |
| School | 1 |
| Consortium | 12 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 3 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 55 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 35 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 38 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 22 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 2 |
| 2019 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Polaris | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 220 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 25 | 51 | 77 | 47 | 8 | 7.41 | 8 | |||
| ILS Functionality | 219 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 31 | 58 | 70 | 43 | 8 | 7.34 | 8 | |||
| Print Functionality | 215 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 17 | 39 | 82 | 66 | 8 | 7.74 | 8 |
| Electronic Functionality | 218 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 15 | 18 | 28 | 22 | 54 | 34 | 33 | 7 | 6.19 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 216 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 28 | 23 | 52 | 51 | 38 | 7 | 6.75 | 7 |
| Support Satisfaction | 214 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 7 | 22 | 28 | 33 | 54 | 53 | 8 | 6.94 | 8 |
| Support Improvement | 212 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 7 | 19 | 72 | 26 | 18 | 28 | 31 | 5 | 5.94 | 5 |
| Company Loyalty | 210 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 11 | 24 | 23 | 43 | 47 | 38 | 8 | 6.45 | 7 |
| Open Source Interest | 208 | 62 | 28 | 24 | 17 | 20 | 30 | 9 | 4 | 4 | 10 | 0 | 2.70 | 2 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 227 | 19 | 8.37% |
| Considering new Interface | 227 | 16 | 7.05% |
| System Installed on time? | 227 | 203 | 89.43% |
| Average Collection size: | 491957 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 198 |
| Academic | 9 |
| School | 1 |
| Consortium | 14 |
| Special | 1 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 21 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 86 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 42 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 44 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 18 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 1 |
| 2018 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Polaris | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 258 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 11 | 20 | 77 | 86 | 53 | 8 | 7.39 | 8 |
| ILS Functionality | 256 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 11 | 22 | 69 | 99 | 45 | 8 | 7.40 | 8 | |
| Print Functionality | 252 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 12 | 46 | 121 | 58 | 8 | 7.67 | 8 | ||
| Electronic Functionality | 253 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 12 | 29 | 45 | 59 | 52 | 34 | 7 | 6.43 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 252 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 13 | 8 | 28 | 35 | 57 | 61 | 38 | 8 | 6.59 | 7 |
| Support Satisfaction | 251 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 15 | 19 | 28 | 54 | 62 | 57 | 8 | 6.94 | 7 |
| Support Improvement | 247 | 8 | 3 | 9 | 6 | 26 | 79 | 30 | 27 | 30 | 29 | 5 | 5.70 | 5 |
| Company Loyalty | 247 | 10 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 34 | 19 | 49 | 57 | 49 | 8 | 6.52 | 7 |
| Open Source Interest | 248 | 69 | 31 | 36 | 22 | 29 | 32 | 12 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 0 | 2.64 | 2 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 270 | 22 | 8.15% |
| Considering new Interface | 270 | 26 | 9.63% |
| System Installed on time? | 270 | 248 | 91.85% |
| Average Collection size: | 427048 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 243 |
| Academic | 9 |
| School | 0 |
| Consortium | 17 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 20 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 99 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 50 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 58 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 22 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2017 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Polaris | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 263 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 14 | 31 | 73 | 87 | 45 | 8 | 7.25 | 8 | |
| ILS Functionality | 261 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 9 | 21 | 85 | 93 | 41 | 8 | 7.34 | 8 | ||
| Print Functionality | 263 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 14 | 50 | 104 | 77 | 8 | 7.71 | 8 |
| Electronic Functionality | 257 | 4 | 2 | 14 | 6 | 15 | 24 | 43 | 57 | 59 | 33 | 8 | 6.44 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 259 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 14 | 34 | 32 | 63 | 63 | 39 | 7 | 6.71 | 7 |
| Support Satisfaction | 248 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 11 | 15 | 30 | 69 | 61 | 45 | 7 | 6.90 | 7 |
| Support Improvement | 244 | 11 | 2 | 6 | 12 | 24 | 69 | 23 | 35 | 29 | 33 | 5 | 5.75 | 5 |
| Company Loyalty | 255 | 9 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 20 | 23 | 29 | 47 | 54 | 58 | 9 | 6.60 | 7 |
| Open Source Interest | 256 | 90 | 28 | 38 | 23 | 26 | 22 | 12 | 7 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 2.32 | 2 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 267 | 20 | 7.49% |
| Considering new Interface | 267 | 30 | 11.24% |
| System Installed on time? | 267 | 247 | 92.51% |
| Average Collection size: | 418065 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 228 |
| Academic | 11 |
| School | 3 |
| Consortium | 21 |
| Special | 2 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 11 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 119 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 51 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 51 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 30 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2016 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Polaris | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 216 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 29 | 60 | 69 | 43 | 8 | 7.35 | 8 | |
| ILS Functionality | 218 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 11 | 26 | 61 | 69 | 40 | 8 | 7.25 | 8 | |
| Print Functionality | 213 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 14 | 50 | 76 | 62 | 8 | 7.72 | 8 | ||
| Electronic Functionality | 212 | 9 | 1 | 5 | 8 | 13 | 20 | 34 | 59 | 35 | 28 | 7 | 6.30 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 213 | 1 | 8 | 3 | 9 | 22 | 29 | 53 | 51 | 37 | 7 | 6.84 | 7 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 212 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 14 | 18 | 37 | 41 | 47 | 48 | 9 | 6.96 | 7 |
| Support Improvement | 205 | 7 | 3 | 8 | 7 | 26 | 62 | 17 | 37 | 18 | 20 | 5 | 5.56 | 5 |
| Company Loyalty | 213 | 8 | 1 | 5 | 17 | 22 | 22 | 40 | 51 | 47 | 8 | 6.75 | 7 | |
| Open Source Interest | 215 | 92 | 30 | 28 | 15 | 20 | 15 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1.82 | 1 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 219 | 17 | 7.76% |
| Considering new Interface | 219 | 23 | 10.50% |
| System Installed on time? | 219 | 205 | 93.61% |
| Average Collection size: | 453385 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 180 |
| Academic | 17 |
| School | 4 |
| Consortium | 15 |
| Special | 2 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 9 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 98 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 42 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 38 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 22 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
The following table presents the 2015 results according to the type and size of the library.
| Polaris | 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 | 206 | 7.24 | 11 | 6.45 | 0 | 0 | 119 | 7.26 | 42 | 7.26 | 15 | 7.60 | 0 | 17 | 7.53 | |||
| ILSFunctionality | 207 | 7.30 | 11 | 5.64 | 0 | 0 | 119 | 7.42 | 42 | 7.36 | 15 | 7.47 | 0 | 18 | 7.44 | |||
| PrintFunctionality | 207 | 7.57 | 11 | 7.36 | 0 | 0 | 119 | 7.49 | 42 | 7.57 | 15 | 8.13 | 0 | 18 | 7.78 | |||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 206 | 6.23 | 11 | 4.55 | 0 | 0 | 119 | 6.43 | 41 | 6.51 | 15 | 6.00 | 0 | 18 | 6.17 | |||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 204 | 6.90 | 11 | 6.09 | 0 | 0 | 116 | 6.91 | 42 | 6.90 | 15 | 7.33 | 0 | 18 | 6.94 | |||
| CompanyLoyalty | 198 | 6.63 | 10 | 5.70 | 0 | 0 | 113 | 6.68 | 40 | 6.90 | 15 | 6.93 | 0 | 18 | 6.11 | |||
| 2015 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Polaris | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 206 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 9 | 24 | 69 | 61 | 34 | 7 | 7.24 | 7 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 207 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 13 | 22 | 50 | 82 | 32 | 8 | 7.30 | 8 | |
| Print Functionality | 207 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 10 | 8 | 36 | 94 | 50 | 8 | 7.57 | 8 |
| Electronic Functionality | 206 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 15 | 7 | 31 | 35 | 52 | 33 | 23 | 7 | 6.23 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 206 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 29 | 34 | 43 | 54 | 26 | 8 | 6.67 | 7 |
| Support Satisfaction | 204 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 13 | 25 | 27 | 30 | 56 | 43 | 8 | 6.90 | 7 | |
| Support Improvement | 195 | 7 | 3 | 11 | 18 | 20 | 58 | 13 | 27 | 18 | 20 | 5 | 5.33 | 5 |
| Company Loyalty | 198 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 21 | 33 | 50 | 42 | 8 | 6.63 | 7 |
| Open Source Interest | 204 | 82 | 27 | 27 | 16 | 17 | 15 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 2.04 | 1 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 215 | 17 | 7.91% |
| Considering new Interface | 215 | 26 | 12.09% |
| System Installed on time? | 215 | 196 | 91.16% |
| Average Collection size: | 459670 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 184 |
| Academic | 11 |
| School | 0 |
| Consortium | 18 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 4 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 97 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 46 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 43 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 25 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2014 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Polaris | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 169 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 19 | 43 | 59 | 37 | 8 | 7.51 | 8 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 169 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 20 | 46 | 59 | 33 | 8 | 7.40 | 8 |
| Print Functionality | 167 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 9 | 33 | 64 | 50 | 8 | 7.66 | 8 | |
| Electronic Functionality | 164 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 12 | 22 | 34 | 34 | 33 | 14 | 6 | 6.20 | 6 | |
| Company Satisfaction | 168 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 9 | 25 | 46 | 44 | 35 | 7 | 7.23 | 7 | |
| Support Satisfaction | 165 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 14 | 41 | 49 | 44 | 8 | 7.36 | 8 | |
| Support Improvement | 161 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 20 | 48 | 16 | 22 | 20 | 16 | 5 | 5.64 | 5 |
| Company Loyalty | 167 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 20 | 29 | 43 | 48 | 9 | 7.11 | 8 | |
| Open Source Interest | 161 | 63 | 22 | 16 | 13 | 16 | 14 | 6 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2.14 | 1 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 170 | 9 | 5.29% |
| Considering new Interface | 170 | 16 | 9.41% |
| System Installed on time? | 170 | 164 | 96.47% |
| Average Collection size: | 570334 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 143 |
| Academic | 10 |
| School | 0 |
| Consortium | 14 |
| Special | 1 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 6 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 63 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 45 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 33 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 20 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 1 |
| 2013 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Polaris | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 138 | 1 | 9 | 10 | 34 | 49 | 35 | 8 | 7.63 | 8 | ||||
| ILS Functionality | 138 | 3 | 6 | 12 | 36 | 51 | 30 | 8 | 7.54 | 8 | ||||
| Print Functionality | 136 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 19 | 52 | 44 | 8 | 7.65 | 8 | ||
| Electronic Functionality | 136 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 8 | 19 | 22 | 22 | 36 | 14 | 8 | 6.28 | 7 |
| Company Satisfaction | 136 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 7 | 27 | 46 | 43 | 8 | 7.70 | 8 | |||
| Support Satisfaction | 137 | 3 | 2 | 11 | 9 | 30 | 41 | 41 | 8 | 7.54 | 8 | |||
| Support Improvement | 135 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 32 | 15 | 22 | 27 | 31 | 5 | 6.83 | 7 | |
| Company Loyalty | 137 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 8 | 23 | 29 | 60 | 9 | 7.62 | 8 | |
| Open Source Interest | 134 | 60 | 18 | 20 | 8 | 5 | 13 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1.78 | 1 | |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 143 | 1 | 0.70% |
| Considering new Interface | 143 | 15 | 10.49% |
| System Installed on time? | 143 | 132 | 92.31% |
| Average Collection size: | 532870 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 118 |
| Academic | 11 |
| School | 1 |
| Consortium | 11 |
| Special | 1 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 2 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 57 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 42 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 18 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 16 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 1 |
| 2012 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Polaris | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 152 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 29 | 64 | 45 | 8 | 7.87 | 8 | ||||
| ILS Functionality | 152 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 54 | 51 | 33 | 7 | 7.62 | 8 | |||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 151 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 9 | 17 | 60 | 54 | 8 | 7.83 | 8 | ||
| Support Satisfaction | 152 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 11 | 44 | 44 | 42 | 7 | 7.52 | 8 | ||
| Support Improvement | 144 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 50 | 19 | 17 | 16 | 29 | 5 | 6.37 | 6 | ||
| Company Loyalty | 152 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 14 | 3 | 21 | 24 | 86 | 9 | 7.97 | 9 | ||
| Open Source Interest | 149 | 50 | 19 | 23 | 22 | 12 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2.11 | 2 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 161 | 2 | 1.24% |
| Considering new Interface | 161 | 6 | 3.73% |
| System Installed on time? | 161 | 150 | 93.17% |
| Average Collection size: | 411671 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 140 |
| Academic | 8 |
| School | 1 |
| Consortium | 9 |
| Special | 2 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 2 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 54 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 43 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 27 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 27 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2011 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Polaris | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 102 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 37 | 35 | 8 | 7.77 | 8 | |||
| ILS Functionality | 102 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 20 | 46 | 23 | 8 | 7.71 | 8 | ||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 100 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 15 | 36 | 37 | 9 | 7.80 | 8 | ||
| Support Satisfaction | 100 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 22 | 29 | 33 | 9 | 7.55 | 8 | ||
| Support Improvement | 97 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 23 | 10 | 12 | 18 | 20 | 5 | 6.37 | 7 |
| Company Loyalty | 100 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 28 | 52 | 9 | 7.95 | 9 | |
| Open Source Interest | 99 | 46 | 12 | 20 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1.48 | 1 | |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 106 | 2 | 1.89% |
| Considering new Interface | 106 | 8 | 7.55% |
| System Installed on time? | 106 | 101 | 95.28% |
| Average Collection size: | 541249 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 91 |
| Academic | 3 |
| School | 1 |
| Consortium | 9 |
| Special | 1 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 4 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 39 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 22 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 20 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 15 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 1 |
| 2010 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Polaris | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 101 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 17 | 42 | 32 | 8 | 7.77 | 8 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 100 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 14 | 32 | 41 | 9 | 7.83 | 8 | |||
| Support Satisfaction | 101 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 18 | 30 | 40 | 9 | 7.74 | 8 | ||
| Support Improvement | 100 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 17 | 11 | 6 | 33 | 26 | 8 | 7.11 | 8 | |
| Company Loyalty | 100 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 25 | 52 | 9 | 7.92 | 9 | |
| Open Source Interest | 100 | 41 | 13 | 17 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1.98 | 1 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 104 | 6 | 5.77% |
| Considering new Interface | 104 | 10 | 9.62% |
| System Installed on time? | 104 | 99 | 95.19% |
| Average Collection size: | 356804 |
|---|
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Public | 92 |
| Academic | 6 |
| School | 0 |
| Consortium | 6 |
| Special | 0 |
| Size Category | Count |
|---|---|
| [1] Under 10,000 | 2 |
| [2] 10,001-100,000 | 33 |
| [3] 100,001-250,000 | 20 |
| [4] 250,001-1,000,000 | 17 |
| [5] 1,000,001-10,000,000 | 9 |
| [6] over 10,000,001 | 0 |
| 2009 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Polaris | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 92 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 13 | 52 | 21 | 8 | 7.79 | 8 | ||
| ILS Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 92 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 48 | 27 | 8 | 7.80 | 8 | ||
| Support Satisfaction | 91 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 17 | 45 | 22 | 8 | 7.68 | 8 | ||
| Support Improvement | 87 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 13 | 12 | 8 | 29 | 17 | 8 | 6.83 | 8 | |
| Company Loyalty | 91 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 37 | 36 | 8 | 7.68 | 8 | |
| Open Source Interest | 90 | 27 | 21 | 13 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2.28 | 1 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 92 | 6 | 6.52% |
| Considering new Interface | 92 | 6 | 6.52% |
| System Installed on time? | 92 | 85 | 92.39% |
| 2008 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Polaris | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 51 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 21 | 16 | 8 | 7.73 | 8 | ||||
| ILS Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 51 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 15 | 22 | 9 | 7.76 | 8 | ||||
| Support Satisfaction | 51 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 11 | 20 | 9 | 7.41 | 8 | |||
| Support Improvement | 0 | not applicable | ||||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 52 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 14 | 25 | 9 | 7.33 | 8 | |
| Open Source Interest | 51 | 15 | 13 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2.29 | 1 | |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 53 | 5 | 9.43% |
| Considering new Interface | 53 | 3 | 5.66% |
| System Installed on time? | 53 | 48 | 90.57% |
| 2007 Survey Results | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: Polaris | Response Distribution | Statistics | ||||||||||||
| Category | Responses | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mode | Mean | Median |
| ILS Satisfaction | 59 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 12 | 18 | 21 | 9 | 7.78 | 8 | |||
| ILS Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Print Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Electronic Functionality | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||
| Company Satisfaction | 64 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 11 | 20 | 26 | 9 | 7.89 | 8 | |||
| Support Satisfaction | 64 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 17 | 33 | 9 | 8.11 | 9 | ||||
| Support Improvement | 0 | not applicable | ||||||||||||
| Company Loyalty | 63 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 18 | 24 | 9 | 7.49 | 8 | ||
| Open Source Interest | 62 | 20 | 11 | 11 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2.27 | 2 |
| Category | Total | Yes | percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Considering new ILS | 64 | 1 | 1.56% |
| Considering new Interface | 64 | 2 | 3.13% |
| System Installed on time? | 64 | 1 | 1.56% |
2024 : gen: 7.56 company 7.05 loyalty 7.19 support 7.05
2023 : gen: 7.36 company 6.81 loyalty 6.90 support 6.89
2022 : gen: 7.40 company 7.07 loyalty 6.88 support 7.06
2021 : gen: 7.57 company 7.18 loyalty 7.26 support 7.31
2020 : gen: 7.46 company 7.11 loyalty 7.10 support 7.31
2019 : gen: 7.41 company 6.75 loyalty 6.45 support 6.94
2018 : gen: 7.39 company 6.59 loyalty 6.52 support 6.94
2017 : gen: 7.25 company 6.71 loyalty 6.60 support 6.90
2016 : gen: 7.35 company 6.84 loyalty 6.75 support 6.96
2015 : gen: 7.24 company 6.67 loyalty 6.63 support 6.90
2014 : gen: 7.51 company 7.23 loyalty 7.11 support 7.36
2013 : gen: 7.63 company 7.70 loyalty 7.62 support 7.54
2012 : gen: 7.87 company 7.83 loyalty 7.97 support 7.52
2011 : gen: 7.77 company 7.80 loyalty 7.95 support 7.55
2010 : gen: 7.77 company 7.83 loyalty 7.92 support 7.74
2009 : gen: 7.79 company 7.80 loyalty 7.68 support 7.68
2008 : gen: 7.73 company 7.76 loyalty 7.33 support 7.41
2007 : gen: 7.78 company 7.89 loyalty 7.49 support 8.11
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). (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
I have not been pleased with Innovative merger with POLARIS. We had better customer service with POLARIS representatives compared to Innovative. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Consortium)
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. (Type: Public)
The system works well overall, but a little more attention to detail would speed thing up substantially. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Academic)
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. (Type: Consortium)
We are part of [...]. All support, etc is through them so there are many questions that I cannot answer. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Medical)
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. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Academic)
After Innovative purchased Polaris we were concerned our support might erode. Thus far, our excellent Polaris customer support has been maintained. (Type: Public)
We are more likely to move to Open Source if Innovative costs go up or if they stop full support of Polaris. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Consortium)
Support from Polaris customer service is very good. Billing, maintenance contract, etc., through the III California office has been difficult and not timely. (Type: Public)
Product is okay. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
Even with the acquisition by iii we have been happy working with Polaris. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Consortium)
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. (Type: Public)
Since III acquired Polaris in April 2015, we have seen a decided decline in the customer service function. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
Lower scores for support questions reflect change as result of Polaris takeover by Innovative. Merger has not resulted in gains/better support. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
While we have seen the customer service and enhancement response decrease since the merger we still remain satisfied with the company and the software. (Type: Public)
5 mil items currently in ILS, many more not in system (Type: Consortium)
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. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Consortium)
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. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
N (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Academic)
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. (Type: Public)
[...] (Type: Public)
This is one branch of a city-wide library system which includes 295000 items in its total collection. (Type: Public)
We are very happy with the system we have at this time (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
We're really happy with our switch from Sirsi-Dynix to Polaris. We would never go back. Customer support with Polaris is greatly improved. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
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... (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
We have only been using it since spring but it seems to be very user friendly. (Type: Public)
I think customer service has been negatively impacted by the III acquisition particularly in the sales dept., but hopefully that is getting better. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
We are very pleased with our current product. Though there are concerns about many changes due to the company being bought out. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Consortium)
Customer service has not been as responsive since Polaris was sold to III. Overall though, we are still very pleased with the product. (Type: Public)
Our ILS is managed by the [...]. They know much more about the migration process to the current ILS than we do. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Consortium)
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. (Type: Public)
We're under contract to migrate to SirsiDynix in March (Type: Public)
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 (Type: Public)
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. (Type: Public)
|
|
|