| 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 |
The following table presents the 2019 results according to the type and size of the library.
| 2019 Polaris Responses by Sector | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 220 | 7.41 | 8 | 7.13 | 1 | 0 | 126 | 7.48 | 42 | 7.48 | 12 | 6.33 | 1 | 14 | 7.64 | |||
| ILSFunctionality | 219 | 7.34 | 8 | 7.13 | 1 | 0 | 126 | 7.44 | 41 | 7.32 | 12 | 6.17 | 1 | 14 | 7.64 | |||
| PrintFunctionality | 215 | 7.74 | 8 | 8.00 | 1 | 0 | 124 | 7.59 | 40 | 7.90 | 11 | 7.73 | 1 | 14 | 8.29 | |||
| ElectronicFunctionality | 218 | 6.19 | 8 | 5.75 | 1 | 0 | 124 | 6.25 | 42 | 6.45 | 12 | 5.50 | 1 | 14 | 5.79 | |||
| SatisfactionCustomerSupport | 214 | 6.94 | 8 | 6.25 | 1 | 0 | 121 | 6.91 | 42 | 7.10 | 12 | 6.75 | 1 | 14 | 7.43 | |||
| CompanyLoyalty | 210 | 6.45 | 8 | 5.13 | 1 | 0 | 119 | 6.39 | 42 | 6.83 | 12 | 5.67 | 1 | 14 | 7.14 | |||
| 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 |
| 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 | 197 | 91.63% |
| 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% |
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
Some of the questions are not applicable. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are very disappointed that Innovative is not going to continue with develpment on Polaris products. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
As the system has been upgraded, accessing the day-to-day material has become longer and registering through an e-card location has increased the amount of time to register a patron in the juvenile class. Overall, in my opinion, the Polaris system doesn't work as well as it should. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
There should be a 'no change' option for the question about customer support better/worse than previous year. [..] does not use a discovery system - can you update the public profile accordingly? (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
The support staff are GREAT. The sales staff need to improve. Information and pricing on new products, for example, INSPIRE, is lacking. The turnover of staff is reflected in mixed messages. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
We are part of [...] and, as such, have no plans to add or change - that's a consortium decision. I have no knowledge of the company's customer support, etc. I only deal with [...] . (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
The price points since the acquisition by III are not great but the products, support, and service remain fantastic! (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
I am completing this for one of 9 branch libraries. All numbers reported reflect the entire system and not one location. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)
[...] is in the process of implementing Polaris. I don't feel that I can answer questions regarding it at this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium)
Our current ILS was produced by a company that no longer exists, having been bought out. But the new vendor has no interest in developing it further, apparently. We are stuck with this for the time being; the next time that a migration is contemplated, i expect that the library will consider other alternatives. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)
[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)
As in previous years, we've been very happy with the technical support we receive from Innovative, but very unhappy with customer service. Our technical site manager responds to our questions and work tickets quickly and efficiently, fixing problems as they arise in a very timely fashion. Customer service, on the other hand, is slow to respond. Requests for quotes for add-on products to our ILS go unanswered or we will only receive the quotes after repetitive follow-up requests. It's like we are asking to spend money with the company and they aren't interested! (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Stat for local collection only (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
There are several questions that I cannot answer, overall Polaris was much better before it was sold to III. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
The Polaris tech support is great. The other Innovative customer support is terrible, basically non existent, despite numerous conversations I had with Innovative management about customer support services issues, including with the new CEO, at the 2019 IUG conference. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
As a school library currently using an ILS made for public libraries (which is a requirement to be part of our consortium), it is hard to correctly rate the ILS. I rated it for my purposes, as a school library. I'm sure it works much better for public libraries but it is missing key functions that I would like to see. (Library type: School; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 3)
We have not had to ask for customer support. We are a tiny library within a large consortium, we really don't have a strong opinion or control over the ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
We share our ILS (not the discovery layer) with the local public and community college libraries; the public library is the "owner" of the system. We are not aware of any plans at present to consider a system migration. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)
The system we belong to is great! (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We use Polaris managed by a country library through a shared system. We are an independent library in the shared system. We have issues with the product. We do not have direct control of the product. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
This survey was very difficult for me to answer. I have only been with this library for 2 months now. My first job with a library. And still learning how it all works. But I do look forward to your survey next fall. thank you (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
It is difficult to keep information from electronic resource vendors in sync with our catalog's holdings. There are also flaws in how the catalog deals with some issues found in print resources that are not perfectly executed with a consortium in mind (particularly multi-volume records). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
This is a small branch library of the [...] . Consortium staff deal directly with ILS vendor for support. Would like open source product but would need Consortium to also be onboard, and currently do not have dedicated paid Consortium IT staff. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
R&D for Polaris has waned as more and more of the enhancements coming out center around the LEAP product. Our perception is that percentage of LEAP vs Polaris is heavily weighted towards LEAP. The philosophical change can be easily marked with Innovative's purchase of Polaris. It is a disappointment to those libraries who are champions of the traditional Polaris ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
The Approximate number of items in the library's collection represents all items for the Consortia One area of material management that the ILS does not handle well is items like Book Club Kits or non traditional items, like telescopes, digital projectors etc. The traditional system of checking out the item immediately or placing a hold and waiting for the item to be returned does not work. We need the ability to schedule a checkout for a certain day to make sure something like a Book Club kit is available when the group needs it. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I'm not sure how to answer these questions when we have only had the system for a few days. (Library type: Public; collection size: small)
This is the only survey response from the [...] as a whole. So when you're recording please disregard other survey responses that you sent to our individual branches. Also, it's hard for us to know about our level of confidence in the company since it was just purchased by Ex Libris. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
Innovative Interfaces has recently signed an agreement to be acquired by Ex Libris, a ProQuest company. A little uncertain what that will mean in the future. Usual promises of maintaining current platforms, etc. Time will tell! (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We migrated to Polaris from Horizon primarily for the LEAP staff interface. We had heard from other libraries that support wasn't great, and so far that's what our experience shows. While technically proficient, support is very slow at responding. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Polaris itself is a good product. However, quality of documentation and support has gone down since acquisitions by III. BiblioCommons, while an improvement for search, does not take advantage of all the functionality in Polaris, which is frustrating. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Polaris customer support continues to be top notch. The Site Managers, Team Leader, and Manager are all super responsive, reliable, and knowledgeable. Other departments of the business (sales, accounting, etc) are about on par with other vendors. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Polaris staff are fantastic. Not as much respect for the Innovative folks. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)
Since Innovative Interfaces Inc. is being acquired by ProQuest, I am remaining neutral on this for the time being. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Polaris product has become extremely expensive. Our librarians all like the Polaris product, but the consistent high rise in cost over the years (future projected cost increase) has caused us to opt out of this program. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)
We just renewed with Innovative for a 3 year on-premise contract, and will be moving to hosted Polaris at the end of that term. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Number reflects physical items and ebooks through Cloud Library ... does not include other items in e format. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Would be nice if there was an app for users to access resources. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are happy with the parts of the product we use. Ever since III, Inc. bought Polaris the customer service has been spotty. In particular, the sales rep has been less than candid in pricing services. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
The library belongs to a consortium, which selects the ILS and interfaces with the vendor. I would have answered N/A to several of the questions, had that been an option. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
We have not had this ILS very long, so many glitches and education is still needed. We have an outstanding group of people helping us (ODIN) get through the problem areas. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)
Polaris has been super for us. I feel their customer service is good. The price point of the annual maintenance fee may force us to look elsewhere. Other libraries in our area have migrated to systems that have a less expensive maintenance fee. I will be talking with these libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
I feel that most of these questions pertains not to my small library but to the [...] who oversees the operations of the Polaris System. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The main issues that we run into with Polaris is that we are a Library in a consortium environment. Polaris seems like it is better suited for a library system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)
Our Head Office makes all the decisions for which I am very grateful (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
Be nice if Polaris/iii wouldn't get bought out consistently (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We are using hosted Polaris with LEAP for almost all circ tasks and theorize that we are one of the few libraries doing so since Support seems pretty well embedded in locally hosted clients. The Support team itself is responsive and has taken steps to streamline the customer experience with support tools. They are kind of "super admins" but appear to have almost no sway with the product team that decides what bugs to fix and features to implement. The web interface and the cloud are not being developed under an agile, customer-centric model (like that used by Bibliocommons). So expect web code but none of the agile development that should come with it. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Desktop Polaris is robust, but soooo clunky and dated. I hate that it only works with Internet Explorer. Conversely, the multi-web-browser-compatible LEAP product still isn't fleshed out enough for my staff to convert to it. I can't address Polaris's customer service because we are part of a consortium and the consortial staff are our points of contact. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
Since we're part of the [...] consortium, we deal with the [...] system administrators, not Polaris directly. In spite of this I think Polaris does a good job of keeping on top of issues, and there have been occasions in the past when the [...] system admin has had to enlist Polaris' help with issues, and they've always been able to resolve them. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)
I am satisfied with Polaris system (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Cannot reasonably answer questions related to the relationship between the library and the vendor as all such matters are handle at the library system level. Implementation, maintenance, upgrade, and support are all handled by the library system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
I don't have much choice in what system we use. This is more appropriate to be directed to the staff at [...] Headquarters. I just use what I've been given. I am unaware of contracts or anything! Many of these questions don't even apply to branch librarians in tiny little libraries. The system was installed before I was even hired a year ago. My answers are not going to reflect much of anything. Perhaps an "N/A" option would be a good idea. I have no choice of whether or not we migrate to a new automation system. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)
We are part of a library system and they choose was database we all use. So some of your questions seem unfair to comment on because we don't purchase the data base independent as an individual library. Upgrades, and supports are also all handled at the systems level. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)
The approximate number of items in the library's collection above, as listed in our Annual Report, includes access to digital titles through Hoopla, RBDigital and OverDrive. Physical items = 141,147 (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Most decisions are based on the advice of our Library System. They do extremely well on our behalf. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)
Pubic service staff use Polaris Web Client to serve customers which has been pretty helpful. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)
Keen to learn how Ex Libris will handle Polaris. (Library type: State; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)
We do not have direct contact with the vendor. We report issues to [...]. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)
We've had great customer service this past year with our assigned site manager going the extra mile to try and make things work. We also still love our products. I think the biggest thing that looms for us with our current ILS vendor is seemingly the lack of stability in the overall company. They just went through another buyout, so we're hopeful that this will be the right home for an ILS that we feel is superior in many ways to others. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)
Our libraries will probably not choose to continue with EDS partially due to difficulties implementing it and partially due to changes in resources available through the State Library (switched from Ebsco databases to Gale, which makes EDS less seamless.) (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)
|
|
|