Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Alma

2022 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction429 1 2 2 6 23 54 208 113 20 77.027
ILS Functionality429 1 1 1 5 4 22 59 158 135 43 77.167
Print Functionality426 2 1 9 10 40 139 175 50 87.408
Electronic Functionality427 1 4 2 7 10 21 69 140 138 35 77.007
Company Satisfaction425 2 4 3 13 18 37 94 149 88 17 76.527
Support Satisfaction426 2 7 5 27 35 63 98 105 69 15 76.026
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty422 7 3 2 8 16 42 56 116 103 69 76.877
Open Source Interest408 102 38 58 45 32 51 28 23 15 13 03.113

Considering new ILS436 163.67%
Considering new Interface436 173.90%
System Installed on time?436 00.00%

Average Collection size: 2761453


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00081
[3] 100,001-250,00068
[4] 250,001-1,000,000119
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000111
[6] over 10,000,00114

2021 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction367 1 5 4 12 29 61 137 98 20 76.837
ILS Functionality366 3 5 10 20 44 126 124 34 77.127
Print Functionality364 1 5 8 15 43 106 148 38 87.288
Electronic Functionality366 2 3 8 16 27 67 114 102 27 76.807
Company Satisfaction367 1 6 16 15 33 76 117 82 21 76.557
Support Satisfaction365 1 5 9 19 25 47 85 97 55 22 76.146
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty359 6 4 7 15 12 46 22 92 86 69 76.767
Open Source Interest354 116 30 52 31 23 43 16 17 10 9 02.772

Considering new ILS376 164.26%
Considering new Interface376 225.85%
System Installed on time?376 00.00%

Average Collection size: 2114526


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0008
[2] 10,001-100,00074
[3] 100,001-250,00054
[4] 250,001-1,000,000109
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00090
[6] over 10,000,00115

2020 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction318 1 3 7 16 41 141 88 21 77.067
ILS Functionality317 3 4 18 30 121 107 34 77.267
Print Functionality314 2 1 3 10 29 90 131 48 87.498
Electronic Functionality313 2 1 4 7 19 59 115 82 24 76.937
Company Satisfaction317 3 2 7 12 13 71 101 92 16 76.797
Support Satisfaction318 6 5 13 20 47 66 93 49 19 76.237
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty310 7 2 1 3 7 23 35 78 93 61 87.117
Open Source Interest307 101 38 45 34 15 35 14 8 7 8 02.452

Considering new ILS322 113.42%
Considering new Interface322 195.90%
System Installed on time?322 00.00%

Average Collection size: 1445028


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,00053
[3] 100,001-250,00051
[4] 250,001-1,000,00094
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00087
[6] over 10,000,0017

2019 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction375 7 6 10 39 70 142 79 22 76.707
ILS Functionality376 5 7 15 30 48 148 87 36 76.887
Print Functionality374 1 3 1 19 32 56 114 104 44 76.977
Electronic Functionality372 2 6 7 14 48 62 116 93 24 76.657
Company Satisfaction376 8 7 15 18 43 75 115 66 29 76.387
Support Satisfaction375 3 8 12 19 28 64 91 88 43 19 65.866
Support Improvement365 4 9 5 21 52 128 49 50 22 25 55.415
Company Loyalty371 6 7 8 8 17 51 41 92 79 62 76.607
Open Source Interest372 129 51 47 42 29 28 19 11 8 8 02.302

Considering new ILS383 143.66%
Considering new Interface383 71.83%
System Installed on time?383 34590.08%

Average Collection size: 1494019


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00010
[2] 10,001-100,00071
[3] 100,001-250,00053
[4] 250,001-1,000,000115
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000107
[6] over 10,000,00111

2018 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction311 2 3 4 14 34 63 118 69 4 76.557
ILS Functionality310 1 1 5 14 33 57 105 81 13 76.717
Print Functionality307 1 2 5 11 24 48 99 87 30 76.947
Electronic Functionality305 2 2 6 6 14 41 46 96 79 13 76.527
Company Satisfaction310 1 5 6 13 19 35 57 91 70 13 76.337
Support Satisfaction308 2 8 13 17 20 48 70 68 50 12 65.876
Support Improvement295 3 5 7 9 38 112 42 33 30 16 55.515
Company Loyalty305 8 5 8 6 17 33 37 71 65 55 76.587
Open Source Interest304 104 51 49 22 27 20 16 8 4 3 02.091

Considering new ILS317 103.15%
Considering new Interface317 92.84%
System Installed on time?317 29191.80%

Average Collection size: 1442753


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00059
[3] 100,001-250,00039
[4] 250,001-1,000,000101
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00087
[6] over 10,000,0016

Statistics according to type and size categories

The following table presents the 2017 results according to the type and size of the library.

SatisfactionLevelILS2536.58 546.17946.56667.00000076.57
ILSFunctionality2526.80 546.57936.86666.83000076.57
PrintFunctionality2536.96 546.89946.87667.20000076.86
ElectronicFunctionality2536.67 546.30946.72666.97000077.00
SatisfactionCustomerSupport2516.04 556.04936.09656.26000075.29
CompanyLoyalty2496.72 526.31946.78657.15000077.00

2017 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction253 4 5 8 27 50 107 43 9 76.587
ILS Functionality252 3 3 7 20 45 102 61 11 76.807
Print Functionality253 3 4 6 23 31 91 75 20 76.967
Electronic Functionality253 2 3 6 7 23 60 72 65 15 76.677
Company Satisfaction252 1 4 3 2 14 39 43 73 55 18 76.507
Support Satisfaction251 1 5 5 8 23 45 53 60 37 14 76.046
Support Improvement247 1 4 6 9 31 83 38 33 21 21 55.665
Company Loyalty249 5 5 5 5 11 29 25 57 57 50 76.727
Open Source Interest249 87 52 42 22 17 15 7 3 1 3 01.781

Considering new ILS260 31.15%
Considering new Interface260 41.54%
System Installed on time?260 24192.69%

Average Collection size: 1178078


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00040
[3] 100,001-250,00039
[4] 250,001-1,000,00088
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00073
[6] over 10,000,0011

2016 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction157 2 2 2 3 5 18 28 54 33 10 76.537
ILS Functionality157 1 1 1 7 7 12 22 51 44 11 76.707
Print Functionality157 1 1 1 4 7 13 24 42 47 17 86.857
Electronic Functionality153 3 1 2 8 12 28 37 44 18 86.807
Company Satisfaction157 3 1 2 7 8 15 28 41 38 14 76.487
Support Satisfaction156 2 2 4 10 10 13 26 46 32 11 76.277
Support Improvement152 1 2 5 5 17 45 21 23 17 16 55.846
Company Loyalty155 4 3 1 2 8 16 15 34 32 40 96.887
Open Source Interest155 72 29 24 9 9 7 1 3 1 01.361

Considering new ILS161 42.48%
Considering new Interface161 53.11%
System Installed on time?161 15193.79%

Average Collection size: 1375159


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0007
[2] 10,001-100,00016
[3] 100,001-250,00027
[4] 250,001-1,000,00054
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00049
[6] over 10,000,0011

2015 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction87 1 1 4 3 9 22 26 21 76.377
ILS Functionality87 1 2 2 3 9 23 29 17 1 76.377
Print Functionality86 1 1 1 4 6 17 28 22 6 76.747
Electronic Functionality86 1 2 2 3 18 30 22 8 76.887
Company Satisfaction87 1 1 1 3 1 12 15 23 22 8 76.617
Support Satisfaction87 1 1 3 2 5 15 11 28 14 7 76.267
Support Improvement84 2 2 1 10 20 10 15 16 8 56.066
Company Loyalty83 1 2 3 6 6 5 20 21 19 86.947
Open Source Interest85 32 17 14 7 5 3 3 4 01.731

Considering new ILS88 22.27%
Considering new Interface88 11.14%
System Installed on time?88 8090.91%

Average Collection size: 1924546


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0003
[2] 10,001-100,0009
[3] 100,001-250,0007
[4] 250,001-1,000,00032
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00033
[6] over 10,000,0012

2014 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction46 2 1 1 4 11 17 10 76.437
ILS Functionality46 1 1 3 6 17 13 4 1 66.096
Print Functionality46 1 3 4 14 9 13 2 66.597
Electronic Functionality46 1 1 1 4 12 10 14 3 86.747
Company Satisfaction46 2 1 3 2 5 19 9 5 76.677
Support Satisfaction46 1 2 1 4 11 20 5 2 76.337
Support Improvement44 1 2 1 4 9 8 5 9 5 56.096
Company Loyalty45 1 1 2 6 2 11 13 9 86.967
Open Source Interest44 18 7 11 2 3 3 01.411

Considering new ILS46 24.35%
Considering new Interface46 12.17%
System Installed on time?46 4291.30%

Average Collection size: 2463832


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0000
[2] 10,001-100,0001
[3] 100,001-250,0007
[4] 250,001-1,000,00016
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00020
[6] over 10,000,0011

2013 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction15 1 1 2 1 6 4 76.207
ILS Functionality15 1 1 1 3 4 4 1 65.336
Print Functionality15 1 1 2 2 3 4 2 86.407
Electronic Functionality15 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 76.007
Company Satisfaction15 1 1 1 7 3 2 76.807
Support Satisfaction15 1 3 1 5 4 1 76.737
Support Improvement15 1 5 1 4 4 56.337
Company Loyalty16 1 1 4 6 4 87.318
Open Source Interest17 9 2 1 1 3 1 01.880

Considering new ILS18 316.67%
Considering new Interface18 15.56%
System Installed on time?18 1794.44%

Average Collection size: 1468604


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,0000
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0009
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0006
[6] over 10,000,0010

2012 Survey Results
Product: Alma Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction7 1 1 2 2 1 44.864
ILS Functionality7 1 1 1 1 3 74.865
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction7 1 1 1 2 2 87.148
Support Satisfaction7 1 1 1 1 1 2 96.147
Support Improvement7 1 1 2 2 1 76.867
Company Loyalty7 2 1 4 96.439
Open Source Interest7 3 1 1 1 1 02.291

Considering new ILS8 225.00%
Considering new Interface8 112.50%
System Installed on time?8 787.50%

Average Collection size: 1033620


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,0000
[3] 100,001-250,0000
[4] 250,001-1,000,0003
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0003
[6] over 10,000,0010

1 Responses for Alma in 2011

0 Responses for Alma in 2010

0 Responses for Alma in 2009

0 Responses for Alma in 2008

0 Responses for Alma in 2007

2022 : gen: 7.02 company 6.52 loyalty 6.87 support 6.02

2021 : gen: 6.83 company 6.55 loyalty 6.76 support 6.14

2020 : gen: 7.06 company 6.79 loyalty 7.11 support 6.23

2019 : gen: 6.70 company 6.38 loyalty 6.60 support 5.86

2018 : gen: 6.55 company 6.33 loyalty 6.58 support 5.87

2017 : gen: 6.58 company 6.50 loyalty 6.72 support 6.04

2016 : gen: 6.53 company 6.48 loyalty 6.88 support 6.27

2015 : gen: 6.37 company 6.61 loyalty 6.94 support 6.26

2014 : gen: 6.43 company 6.67 loyalty 6.96 support 6.33

2013 : gen: 6.20 company 6.80 loyalty 7.31 support 6.73

2012 : gen: 4.86 company 7.14 loyalty 6.43 support 6.14

Comments (survey2017)

We are a very new site. There is the usual disruption with such a massive change, and there are issues with how many features work in the new system. We are still highly satisfied with the move. The rapid pace of development is a very new experience for us and we are trying to figure out the best ways to keep up with that. It does alleviate concerns we have about features that we thought would work better than they do. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We implemented Alma and Primo in January of 2016. We moved to new Alma and Primo interfaces in Fall of 2017. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our main vendor has really stepped up its game in regards to listening to customers at the design-process level. That's greatly improving the design of their products. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Currently most university libraries (13+3+2 out of 21) in our province are looking for a shared LSP as a consortium. We may join them if Alma and Primo are chosen by the consortium. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

It's a hard system to administer for a small library (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our migration from Voyager to Alma was assisted by a knowledgeable and accessible team from Ex Libris. We had previously had a negative experience in adding the Primo discovery system to Voyager ( about a year before migrating to Alma). Ex Libris updated its training materials and personnel before the migration to Alma, and had obviously taken to heart some of the criticism and suggestions we and others made during our move to Primo. The migration was accomplished in a very tight timeline, causing stress for our implementation team, but excellent help was there whenever we needed it. Note: I want to explain an inconsistency on our answer to a survey question: we list the # of items in our collection as 329,081 this year. Last year it was approx. 33,000, which represented the print collection only. Our print collection this year numbers about 55,000 items, but e-resources have been added to the total count this year because of the ease of pulling that particular statistic from Alma. I hope this change in midstream won't negatively impact the survey results. However, it is more representative of the actual resources we provide. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

As we're new to Alma, we still haven't implemented all it's capabilities. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

ExLibris' digital management workflows in Alma are rapidly maturating and I think it would be interesting to include a questions about user satisfaction with how the organisation's ILS manages digital resources, as well as electronic and print. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

21,786 (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

We just migrate to Alma this last year and are still adjusting to it and the support provided. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Alma seems designed for large, multi-library systems. It does not work well for our small, one library institution. The new User Interface is a significant improvement, but does not address complicated and confusing workflows with excessive mouse clicks and scans. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Training was pushed out as online videos which was not well received by staff. Videos included blurry images and we could not see details of Alma screens. There was outdated content and videos were more general overviews. A major difficulty was modifying workflows from III Millennium to Alma. Ex Libris staff were not perceived as being helpful in this regard. Workflow workshops held in Illinois was not accessible to all staff that needed it since we must remain open and serving students. The one on-site workshop came too late after go live. Electronic activations completed by Ex Libris resulted in eresources not being discovered in Primo for various reasons, which is currently perceived as the biggest problem which continues 5 months after go live. Support for eresource discovery is weak. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We love Alma's agile development cycle, analytics, and APIs. Ex Libris still needs to acknowledge that not all libraries at an institution operate the same way; there are still too many institution-level settings that should be library-level. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Primo is problematic. Community Zone for electronic resources often does not include resources for EBSCO products or resources from competing ProQuest vendors, or only includes the most popular ones. Requests for improvements are slow. Have retained EBSCO Discovery Service because Primo is inadequate at this time. Sales Force responses to problems are sometimes general in nature and do not fully address the problem. . We had expected better from Ex Libris Alma/Primo. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Ex Libris staff continue to provide a high level of R&D development and Support processes continue to improve (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

The migration to Alma will not be complete until summer 2018 so I cannot give any opinion on it at this time. However, having suffered with Aleph for the last 3 years, anything is better than that! (Library type: Academic; collection size: small)

We implemented Alma and Primo this summer. Their training was very disappointing, and their documentation is poorly-organized, unclear, incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate. In addition, things that should be simple (e.g. adding an option for users to report a problem with an item) require custom programming by the library. Now that we are live, the quality of support is quite poor. Relatively straightforward issues can take > a month to resolve. Some support staff seem to have trouble understanding the issues we report, requiring multiple back-and-forth communication to convey even a simple problem. The products are powerful and offer extensive capabilities--if implemented well and operated by well-trained staff. Unfortunately, we have struggled due to poor training, documentation, and support. Overall, our staff are frustrated and unhappy with our new systems. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

ExL support is cumbersome and slow. The product still has unrealized potential and is making progress. We have great hopes for PrimoVE. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Specific functions/processes from previous ILS (Voyager) are still desired but not available - and are on the enhancement list (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

ExLibris is an easy to work with vendor. Frequent communication and request for customer input and ideas for improvement. Deliver a reliable product on time. They maintain open communication with customers. Excellent, excellent, excellent. (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our library staff is small, and we have suffered as a result of a shortage in the breadth and depth of our library systems knowledge during the past year. It has been difficult for us to bridge the gap between what we are a lacking as an individual library, and the technical support levels offered by our library consortium and ILS vendor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

ExLibris is responsive to its user community, providing a developer's portal, enabling educational institutions, who have the resources, to develop, implement and share with the larger community. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

"Approximate number of items in the library's collection" I have answered just for physical stock. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We migrated to Alma this year. It was a successful migration, though time-consuming. There's some staff dissatisfaction in the aftermath of the migration particularly in the areas of "steppy" processes that seem oriented toward more complex environments than our single-library case. Many functions that were reasonably straightforward in our previous ILS and article knowledgebase systems now require complex interactions between XML files, normalization and indication rules, Oracle BI queries, and external Excel matchups. The system is highly customizable, except when it's not (scheduled job timing, for example). Staff are generally able to do what they need to do, however. Migration from EDS to Primo has been okay, but we have been dissatisfied with indexing delays and some limitations of search and there have been significant user complaints. We were accustomed to much faster turnaround from changes made in EDS administration, and found that the lag of a day between selection in Alma and display in Primo was bothersome. Inexplicably longer delays happen when Primo needs to establish linkage between full-text in our collections and metadata from publishers. This makes testing e-resource access problems a serious exercise in patience. The Alma/Primo VE environment being rolled out at other institutions will fix the 1-day delay issue, but not the Primo Central indexing delay. We hope that Ex Libris will tackle this soon. Ex Libris is moving Alma forward at a quick pace and new functionality continues to be introduced every month. We have also been pleased with the support provided by Ex Libris before and after our migration. The user interface improvements in Alma this year have been very helpful. We're less pleased with the new UI of Primo -- it is much slower than the old UI, and many interface customizations require complicated angular/javascript changes rather than CSS fixes. We're hoping that performance speeds up significantly in the coming months. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Customer service/support has declined over the last few months. The system is still weighted towards print circulation of stock. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our ILS is a consortial shared system. That has both advantages and disadvantages. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

We only implemented Alma and Primo in May 2017 and until we have had one full year of operation it is difficult to provide a fully informed answer to some of these questions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are very impressed with Ex Libris' commitment to its product development, their clearly defined product roadmaps, delivery of planned functionality and enhancements. We are pleased to be part of a strong and supportive user community - both nationally and internationally. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Overall, very satisfied with Alma as a Library Services Platform. However, not very happy with annual increases in the region of 4.5% to 5% in a really tough economic environment. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

In mid 2017 we went live with ALMA. We still have quite a few problems resulting from our configuration set up. This is mostly due to the fact that information supplied by the vendor to prepare for configuration was not clear or understandable. This has impacted on circulation set up mostly but we are getting there and when it works its great! We have yet to fully set up management of our electronic resources within ALMA so cannot comment on the efficacy of this part of ALMA. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

In the past year our library migrated from Ex Libris Voyager to Ex Libris Alma plus Primo. Our institution had little say in the decision, it was a migration by our the whole consortium. Though we purchase the system together, each institution has its own Alma environment, nothing is shared there. Ex Libris has been marching through the academic library market with migrations to Alma until it almost feels like the default option. However, their development focuses on the biggest customers in large research institutions. Alma is not the best solution for small libraries. Many of the features become cumbersome when applied to an institution with a single library with few staff. Built-in options for displaying tasks that have been "assigned" to you are a hindrance when you are the only person working on that function. Likewise, Alma requires excessive scan-in operations assuming circ and tech services departments that are not in the same building. A lot of functionality is devoted to requests, such as requests for getting an item from one library location or branch to another--when you have only one branch and all locations are in the same building this is not helpful. Other features are things we just can't afford to purchase along with Alma, such as the Digital content management aspect or the Leganto add-on. However, options for these products still exist in course reserve menus and other areas, which further complicated the set-up and use of the product. Print journal operations are a sad afterthought. They are difficult to use and set-up. Reports of expected issues Sorting of issues described by months defaults to alphabetical. Some complex patterns that could be described with MFHD 852 subfields do not work, so they recommend not using predictive check-in for those titles. Alma seems to be much more focused on processes for large journal packages, but as a small library with small budget, we don't have many of those so that is less of a benefit for us. Although the system is several years old now, it still feels new and undeveloped. The Boolean expression NOT is unavailable in advanced search. Questions on user listserv usually have more me-too responses than answers. Authority control does not offer much granularity in functionality or working with results, such as only viewing results in a particular MARC field or from a particular MARC vocabulary. (The items in the review file include 752 field items, but it is impossible to either exclude this field from review or to search for all items that use this field and dismiss them all at once.) Because everything can be customized, nothing is really usable out of the box. The flexibility of allowing everything to be customized also creates a complex customization environment. The solutions to problems and customization seem to require a high degree of familiarity with coding. For instance, "letters," aka emails to users, can be modified by changing stock text in one set of menus plus using xml / xst coding to modify the display of that text. When staff is smaller, having skill and time to use it is more rare. We are thrilled to have a nicer catalog interface with the adoption of Primo, but it also has the drawback of excessive complexity and lack of some features that were available in our more traditional opac. Many useful fields are not included by default (521-movie ratings, 586-awards) in the display of records, we had to request those to be added. Subject authority information is not available as a searchable index, alternate terms can be added to records as extra search words, but that's not the default. Alma works to check materials out and in. Primo works as a basic catalog/discovery layer. However, in so many ways it is over-designed for our institution, and we do not have the personnel, time, or need to take full advantage of it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

After pulling together the strategic, personnel and financial resources to move from Millennium to Alma, we are now five months into post-implementation. Our early impressions of life with Ex Libris have been positive. Support tickets are addressed proactively, the new features added every month are worthwhile, and the APIs have excellent documentation and come at no additional cost, a huge improvement over Innovative. However, we also experienced personnel turnover due to leaves and retirements, at the same time as the migration was obliging us to take on new roles. It will be a while before we can fairly evaluate the effectiveness of our new system and workflows. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We've been with the new system for about a 1.5 years now. It is a complex system but seems to overall work well. Our two main frustrations have been with training (it seems that this could somehow be improved, but given the complexity of the system maybe not) and the monthly release schedule. This along with major UI changes (both on public & staff sides) cause a lot of stress, especially for institutions who are trying to get started with the new system and may be dealing with new concepts & workflows (integrated acquisitions, ERM, migration cleanup, etc.) (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are in a consortium and don't have much contact with the vendor of our ILS. We feel confident saying that the documentation and training available from the vendor are weak. The user interface is not user friendly nor well designed. We also have only been with our new system for a short period of time and are still forming our impressions of it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

More on-site one-on-one or small group training by function during implementation and immediately after Go-Live would strengthen successful implementation and reduce staff stress. Many online training or instruction web sites are out-of-date. Support is sometimes cryptic or insufficient. Ability to handle and sort CODOC call numbers is insufficient so far in Alma in our library and others using CODOC that we contacted. (Library type: Special; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

[..] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large)

currently under teething period . so, it is unfair to comment on the effectiveness & efficiency of using the new system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have Summon not Primo. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

As electronic information provision becomes increasingly disparate our online discovery tools have failed to deliver a usable service. Customers are continually complaining that it is increasingly difficult to access library information and resources. Usability testing has found significant design and accessibility flaws in our providers offering. We should not have to teach our customers how to use our interfaces. They want seamless intuitive access to library content, which none of the providers currently offer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

My personal perception is that Alma seems to be one of the only viable options out there. Although WMS seems like an ok option as well. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I think ExL has struggled a bit due to the ProQuest buyout, and we've yet to realize the gains of any merged product lines. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

It is unlikely that we will migrate to FOLIO -- or any other ILS -- within the next three to five years. Nevertheless, the open source concept is appealing and I don't rule out future consideration. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We just switched to Alma/Primo in July/August 2017. We are still learning the new systems and working on a few post-migration issues. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We have been in production with Alma and Primo for only three months. Our answers reflect our initial impressions only (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We can't answered to your survey at the moment. We are working very hard for the configuration, implementation, training on Alma and I can't even answer on how happy we are with the support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large)

EBSCO's unwillingness to have its databases indexed in the PrimoCentral Index remains a problem. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are pleased with Alma, but we do not feel that Primo has the same high level of UX that Ebsco Discovery Service does. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

La migración al sistema Alma fue un proyecto desafiante: estábamos acostumbrados a migrar el Aleph sucesivamente desde la versión 14.1 hasta la 21, con una metodología conocida, y esta vez nos encontramos con que la tabla Gantt de migración del proveedor era standard, inflexible, inamovible y orientada al Go-Live (es decir, las funcionalidades críticas): que obliga a completar los documentos de configuración antes de la capacitación y de la certificación, que no permite iterar en aspectos claves (por ej.: migración intermedia de datos), que no es exhaustiva (por ej.: no incluye migración de autoridades locales). Adicionalmente hay restricción en la carga de la información histórica, el proveedor no entrega un mapping de datos desde Aleph y otros sistemas hacia Alma, tampoco el modelo de datos de Alma, lo cual dificulta el reconstruir los informes que producíamos en base al Aleph. Las integraciones necesarias para conectar Alma con los sistemas institucionales fueron más complejas que lo considerado inicialmente; las integraciones vía APIs son un recurso escaso, pues las APIs tienen restricción de uso por día. El producto presentó debilidades-inestabilidad en el manejo de contraseñas de usuarios y en el funcionamiento del Editor de Metadatos (el cual es lento y su nivel de usabilidad es bajo); hubo un impacto negativo en algunos procesos, producido por la diferencia de las zonas horarias de los clientes y de los datacenter; para nosotros es un producto estándar que no consideró la zona horaria de nuestro país. También tuvimos una tardía disponibilidad tanto de Primo con nuestros datos de Alma como de los ambientes de prueba Premium. Pensamos que si el producto se vende en regiones donde no se habla inglés, los idiomas de esas regiones debieran ser idiomas oficiales del software y por lo tanto el material de instrucción y la documentación en línea deben estar en el idioma del cliente. El material de instrucción y la documentación en línea debe tener mayor completitud o profundidad en los contenido, considerando la autonomía del aprendizaje. Respecto al soporte, el CRM trata de manera impersonal y no siempre atiende o entiende las urgencias, no tiene promesa de tiempo de respuesta, la relación directa entre personas del cliente y del proveedor era más rápida. El personal del soporte local no tenía las competencias necesarias para apoyar una institución de alta complejidad como la nuestra; fuimos aprendiendo con ellos (por ej.: hubo desconocimiento del proveedor en relación al trabajo con autoridades locales), el Director del proyecto designado por el proveedor, presentó debilidades en el conocimiento del producto y no tenía capacidad de decisión. La demanda por soporte especializado no termina con el Go-live, pero los recursos disponibles del proveedor ya no son los mismos del proyecto de migración. Por otra parte y tras 10 meses de operación apreciamos que el disponer de Alma nos permitió concentrar la gestión del sistema en Administradores certificados, sentir que estamos frente a un sistema más completo y moderno, que pudimos disminuir la cantidad de sistemas en operación y que ya no tenemos que realizar engorrosas migraciones. Independiente de lo anterior, seguimos con atención algunas iniciativas tales como FOLIO u otras que puedan aparecer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Alma continues to be a strong ARL and academic market performer. I believe that both Ex Libris managers and staff are genuinely interested in the success of its customers. However, it’s disappointing that the investments by institutions in licensing Alma hasn’t translated to a better product. While Ex Libris leaves reported, workflow-damaging defects in Alma in place for years, it has introduced new products to the market like Leganto and an emerging research data product. ERM support needs to improve. Link resolver support definitely needs to improve and I’ve heard both former 360 Link and SFX customers complain about the Alma Link Resolver. Support is overwhelmed with the new products and changes to existing products – in some cases, support staff don’t understand the problems reported to them. Building out Alma Analytics for customers (specifically, introducing as many new fields as is possible based upon common community requests) would have been a better long-term investment for the company than introducing new products. I would not be surprised for some early Alma adopters to strongly consider the FOLIO option or alternative management services in the next few years. Ex Libris should be commended for improving its Alma UI in particular and also the Primo UI. Accessibility is challenging for all vendors – for the Primo new user interface, Ex Libris has made some steps forward, but there are still significant accessibility problems with the new Primo interface. Primo APIs only return JSON and not XML, a major limiter for development. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Overall, training can be improved Documentation could be improved and more complete and easy to search Click-intensive, yes Interface is not intuitive from user perspective Eliminates need to load and update local-based clients Streamlines processing for users to request items for pickup. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

There is a certain "approach" to deal with Ex Libris in order to resolve issues or trial/implement new features. Understanding how they support and prioritise cases, makes the process less frustrating. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

In its current state at our institution, ALMA is usable but does not reflect all the time savings and efficiencies that were promised during the migration process. Ex Libris' mechanisms for feedback and correction of bugs is helpful, but often resolution is slow. The wait is sometimes 3-6 months to correct an issue. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

We love Ex Libris, Alma and Primo. We're extremely happy to be their customer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our choice in vendors is driven by the fact that we are a member of [...] . As a [...] institution, we are expected to participate with the consortium's decision. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Unnecessary clicks, interface is awkward, difficult to manage commonly executed work-flows, company lingo used by customer service obscure at best. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are an Alma/Primo shop. It is acknowledged that this product suite takes a fair amount of institutional “maintenance” to support configurations and developments. While we do less on the backend (hosted server), there is a lot work needed on the front end. This complexity makes maintaining the products difficult. We are also tracking other products and Open Source options for the day that one of them more closely matches our specific needs as a research supporting institution. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our library will go live with ALMA/Primo this week. We had indicated last year that we were not satisfied with Millennium, and were planning to migrate. We are still making the transition, however our cutover is tomorrow, and our implementation will end in early February. I will refrain from answering questions on our new product until next year, when we have some experience with the product. I can say at this point that the implementation schedule has hewed very closely to what was written in the contract (a very pleasant experience!). I can also say that the discovery interface, Primo, is not separate from the ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium)

We have been happy with the customer support provided through Ex Libris. The biggest challenge with Alma is keeping up with the monthly updates. We are a small staff and our systems must work. There is no in-house (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are still in the implementation stage for Alma and Primo. (Library type: Government Agency; collection size: very small)

While Alma offers many functionalities, Ex-Libris does not offer enough support to analyze the library workflows and fully take advantage of these functionalities to implement effective workflows. The training modalities (video tutorial + multiple choices), including to obtain the certification, presents functional components in isolation of the others. As a consequence, it is difficult to fully understand how each component interacts with others, and to configure the library workflows. In general we are pleased with the recent upgrade to the new user interface which improve the librarian experience. It definitely became easier to navigate the system and personalize it. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We just migrated to Alma from WMS on January 2, 2018. So, we don't have a ton of experience yet with the system. Implementation was a bit rocky because we and UNC Charlotte are the first 2 WMS libraries to move from WMS to Alma. So far, it is working as expected, but we have a lot more configuration and refinement to do. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Good documentation and searchable in Google. Customers own email list good and great support from Alma community. Regular software updates. Annual voting for enhancements. Customer Service slow and not always satisfactory resolution of calls. Seems to be very concentrated on US libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

This is our first year live with Alma/Primo so some questions are kind of hard to answer. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

A bit too much economy/capitalistic focus, that we dont need here in [...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Test functionality before releasing it = Less haste more speed. More transparency regarding knowledgebase structure, workflows and content. More collaborative arrangements for the creation & maintenance of metadata required between the big players i.e. EBSCO, ProQuest & OCLC. One good quality knowledgebase would be better. We should be judging library systems on their ability to make resources discoverable NOT how much e Content they provide. The Cataloguing module for the product is clunky and it takes too long to carry out relatively basic processes BUT the ability to create sets of records and bulk edit is fantastic. In relation to the support, after going live the support dropped considerably. The supplier has a system, which complies with the service level agreement, but it does not necessary solves the calls. More reliable community zone please. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We require a better performance with mobile devices. It should include an APP that simplify transactions to our users. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Considering moving the discovery face from local to cloud. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The number sited is for physical items. We are also managing 758,250 electronic portfolios via Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have recently implemented ALMA and are very satisfied with it and also with the support and guidance received from ExLibris during the implementation phase. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

ALMA is intended to be flexible and thus configured in many ways to meet different customer needs . Therefore documentation never actually matches your own circumstances and helpdesk responses are often generic and leave us more confused. It often takes asking the same question 3-4 times to get a response that actually is useful. The system itself has some clunky aspects, but after 11/2 years its beginning to make some kind of sense... Front desk staff like it a lot. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Ex Libris continue to be the leading commercial ILS provider and are way ahead of Innovative who have provided very poor customer service regarding the Vital/Fedora repository product since taking it over from VTLS. We have implemented the improved Primo interface since the previous survey. Folio is still a work in progress which we are watching from afar. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

While ILS's tend to be generic in nature it is good for us to move into the managed services arena, i.e. cloud services. Management of digital content is not yet as good as it should be. Integration with other same vendor systems not as good as expected. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)