Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Perceptions 2015: An International Survey of Library Automation

by , January 31, 2016.

The International Survey of Library Automation aims to provide a candid glimpse into the effectiveness of strategic library technology systems from the perspective of the libraries that use them for their daily operations and to fulfill the expectations of their patrons. It focuses primarily on integrated library systems and library services platforms as the applications libraries use to acquire, describe, manage, and provide access to their collections.

Over 3,400 libraries completed this year’s survey, providing sufficient data to focus the analysis more on each category of library type and size rather than aggregating across all responses. The functional requirements of public, academic, school, and other types of libraries overlap to a certain extent, but in other areas have distinctive if not contradictory functionality. Some of the products represented in the survey have been designed for specific sectors. For those used by multiple types of libraries, the analysis of the survey results by size and type of organization provides an opportunity to observe any differences in satisfaction across these categories.

Some interesting themes can be seen in the analysis of this year’s survey results. Libraries using legacy products seem poised to move on to new systems. Those now using products like Aleph, Voyager, and Millennium show ever growing interest in migrating to new systems. Open source products achieve satisfaction levels similar to proprietary products. Results also indicate a tendency for libraries at least consider products offered by their incumbent vendor. Smaller libraries show much more delight with their products and vendors. Large libraries judge on a much more severe scale. These differing levels of expectations make it vital to group results in a way that presents valid comparisons.

I sincerely appreciate the time given by all the libraries that responded to the survey this year and in its previous iterations. Each response contributes to a growing body of data available for the broader library community to explore as they consider their options regarding these strategic technology products. Libraries have always relied on recommendations from their peers as they make system decisions. This survey provides a massive aggregation of that kind of data that can complement more in-depth conversations that libraries considering a system would have with specific reference sites.

Table of Contents



Introduction

top

Launch the interactive version of the survey's statistical results

This ninth annual Library Automation Perceptions Report provides evaluative ratings submitted by individuals representing 3,453 libraries from 64 countries describing experiences with 138 different automation products, including both proprietary and open source systems. The survey results include 1,050 narrative comments providing candid statements -- both positive and negative – about the products and companies involved or statements of intent regarding future automation plans. This report analyzes the results of the survey, presents a variety of statistical tables based on the data collected, and provides some initial observations. It aims to provide information to libraries as they evaluate their options for strategic technology products and to the organizations involved in providing these products and services as constructive criticism to help guide improvements.

View the narrative comments given by responders
Selected Survey Findings: Top Performers
Polaris received highest scores among large public libraries for general satisfaction, ILS functionality, Print functionality, electronic functionality.
Apollo from Biblionix led in all categories for small public libraries.
Alma led for General Satisfaction, ILS functionality, electronic functionality and company loyalty among large academics; general functionality and electronic functionality among mid-sized academics; Alma received highest ratings from small academics on its effectiveness for electronic resource management.
Large public libraries rated support for Symphony highest. These libraries also gave the highest scores for company loyalty to SirsiDynix.
OCLC WorldShareWorldShare led in general satisfaction for mid-sized academic libraries.
Koha, independent of commercial support rated highest for small academic libraries. Koha as supported by ByWater Solutions ranked first in support among mid-sized public libraries.
Library.Solution from The Library Corporation received the highest scores among medium-sized public libraries for electronic resource functionality.
OPALS led in all categories for school libraries.
Spydus from Civica received the highest scores for ILS satisfaction among medium-sized public libraries as well as for company loyalty.

Previous editions: 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007.

Libraries make major investments in strategic automation products, both during the initial implementation period and in annual fees paid for support, software maintenance, and other services. They depend on these products for efficient management of their daily operations and to provide access to their collections and services. This survey report allows libraries to benefit from the perceptions of their peers regarding the quality of automation systems and of the performance of the organizations involved in their development or support.

Libraries in immediate need of replacing their current system, or in the process of making longer term technology strategies, benefit from data across a variety of sources as they assess options. Technical documentation, marketing materials, product demonstrations, product vision statements and functionality checklists represent some sources of information to help libraries evaluate automation products. The vendor community naturally provides information and materials that presents their products in positive terms.

Another important avenue of investigation involves data from libraries with first-hand experience of the products and vendors. This survey aims to measure the perceptions libraries hold regarding their current automation products, the companies that support them and to capture their intentions about future migration options. It also explores interest in open source library automation systems, a key issue for the industry. Though its large number of responses, the survey aggregates the subjective experience of many libraries to create meaningful results, reasonably informative about the collective experience of libraries with this set of products and companies.

The survey allows only one response per library and only one response per individual. This approach ensures that no one library or individual can disproportionately impact survey results. The survey checks for existing responses from each e-mail address or library record number in libraries.org as part of its validation routine.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

top

The survey preserves the anonymity of the individuals responding as well as the institutions with which they are associated. Although response records contain data identifying the institution and the responders, extensive measures are taken to protect these data. Only the administrator of the survey has access to the raw survey response records. The tables of statistical summaries, interactive reports, and narrative reports are designed never to reveal identities of individuals or institutions. The survey publishes any narrative comments given in the responses. While preserving the original response comments, a duplicate of the comments are made in the survey records, with any identifying wording redacted. Names or institutions are replaced with a symbol indicating redaction: […].

Caveats

top

Any interpretation of the statistics must be seen in the context that larger and more complex libraries do not rate their automation systems as favorably as small libraries.

Libraries may refer to the results of this survey as they formulate technology strategies or evaluate specific products. Although the impressions of libraries using a given product inform one area of investigation, libraries should be careful not to overemphasize the statistics or narrative comments in a procurement process. While it reflects the responses of a large number of libraries using these products, the survey should be taken more as an instrument to guide what questions that a library might bring up in their considerations than to drive any conclusions. Especially for libraries with more complex needs, it's unrealistic to expect satisfaction scores at the very top of the rankings. Large and complex libraries exercise all aspects of an automation system and at any given time may have outstanding issues that would result in survey responses short of the highest marks. While a given product may earn positive responses from one sector, it may not be a good choice for libraries with different requirements.

Constructive criticism

top

The survey results also aims to provide useful information to the companies involved in the library automation industry. While many companies perform their own measures of client satisfaction, this survey may show perceptions quite different from internal customer surveys. The rankings in each category and the published comments can represent provide useful data to assist each of the companies hone in on problem areas and make any needed adjustments to their support procedures or product directions.

Survey Response Demographics

top

Collection Size Categories
CountMoreless
318010000
1,09510,00150,000
44450,001100,000
549100,001250,000
339250,001500,000
246500,0011,000,000
3271,000,00110,000,000
1910,000,001
3,348Total of Categories
Counts where collection size provided

This year, the survey attracted 3,453 responses from libraries in 63 different countries. The countries most strongly represented include the United States (2,624 responses), followed by Canada (205), Australia (132), United Kingdom (113), Spain (39), and New Zealand (34). As with the general demographics of the libraries.org database, the respondents of the library primarily come from libraries in English-speaking countries.

While the vast majority of responses continue to come from libraries in the United States, the survey aims to address the international library automation arena. This year the survey form was offered in English, Spanish (translated by Nieves González), French (translated by Alexandre Lemaire), German (translated by Susanne Schuster), Italian (translated by Andrea Marchitelli), Finnish (translated by Petri Tonteri ). Responses received from Spanish-speaking countries, included Spain (39), Argentina (10), Chile (7), Colombia (9), Mexico (7), Venezuela (2), Uruguay (2), and Ecuador (2). A total of 829 of the 3,453 total responses (24.0 percent) came from libraries outside the United States.

The survey received 3,453 responses: ( 2014=3,141; 2013=3,002; 2012=3,030; 2011=2,432; 2010=2,173; 2009=2,099; 2008=1,453; 2007=1,779 ). Across all its editions of the survey, the cumulative data collected totals 22,579 responses. The survey was open between November 14, 2015 and January 21, 2016.

There were 105 of the 3,453 responses with no collection size data provided. These libraries were not able to be included in the parts of the analysis where libraries are segmented by size categories.

Public libraries were represented in largest numbers, with 1,652 responses, followed by academic libraries with 953. This year 319 responses came from school libraries.

The Survey Demographics Report summarizes the library types, countries, and products represented in the survey results:

General Information about the Survey

top

Productcountreport
Symphony459ils report
Sierra334ils report
Polaris215ils report
OPALS214ils report
Millennium178ils report
Koha -- ByWater Solutions154ils report
Atriuum138ils report
Destiny137ils report
VERSO136ils report
Voyager120ils report
ALEPH 500114ils report
Apollo113ils report
Horizon109ils report
Library.Solution104ils report
WorldShare Management Services94ils report
Alma89ils report
Evergreen -- Equinox Software79ils report
Spydus41ils report
Koha -- Independent39ils report
EOS.Web37ils report
Axiell Aurora35ils report
Koha -- LibLime33ils report
LibraryWorld29ils report
Evergreen -- Independent22ils report
None21ils report
Amlib20ils report

The survey attracted responses from libraries using 138 different ILS products. Those represented by more than 20 are shown in the accompanying table, with links that generate a report providing the survey results for that product for each year the survey has been offered. Many other products were represented in the survey with few number of responses. Systems with less than 10 did not appear in the main statistical tables. These responses can be seen through the individual ILS Product Reports.

This report is an original publication of Library Technology Guides and is not slated to appear in any print publication. Please direct any comments or enquiries to the author.

This survey and its analysis reflect my ongoing interest in following trends in the library automation industry. It is designed to complement the annual Library Systems Report feature that I have written between 2002 and 2012 for Library Journal and since 2013 for American Libraries. The survey underlying the Library Systems Report article relies on information provided by the companies that offer library automation products and services. The survey that serves as the basis for this article collects data from the libraries themselves.


Survey Results

top

The survey provides the opportunity for libraries to indicate interest in migrating to a new system and what candidate systems are under consideration. The percentages shown reflect the number of responses where the library indicated that it is shopping for a new system relative to the total number of responses for that product. This table summarizes responses where the library indicates it is shopping for a new system.

Percent of Libraries Considering Moving to new ILS
Current ILS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
ALEPH 500 9.1% 13.6% 11.9% 18.9% 25.7% 34.6% 40.4% 45.7% 55.3%
Apollo 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.5%
Horizon 49.3% 61.5% 45.2% 57.3% 54.7% 49.7% 45.4% 42.2% 34.9%
Library.Solution 12.1% 3.3% 8.7% 14.3% 14.4% 13.6% 12.9% 10.8% 18.3%
Millennium 6.4% 8.6% 11.7% 18.7% 31.2% 42.4% 45.3% 56.9% 65.7%
Polaris 1.6% 9.4% 6.5% 5.8% 1.9% 1.2% 0.7% 5.3% 7.9%
Sierra -- -- -- -- -- 3.2% 5.8% 10.8% 12.9%
Symphony 14.9% 23.1% 15.8% 20.2% 22.5% 20.4% 20.4% 20.8% 18.1%
Voyager 21.6% 21.8% 19.5% 32.3% 38.3% 49.4% 50.9% 67.5% 69.2%

Note: The percentage of libraries indicating they are considering migration increased for Millennium, Aleph, and Voyager when those companies began promoting their next-generation products.

In order to identify potential patterns of future system migrations, the survey asks for the names of the products that the library is considering. In most cases, the responses included multiple products under consideration. The candidate systems mentioned may indicate serious evaluation or mere name recognition. Tabulating the names of the products listed shows strong interest in Alma (173), WorldShare Management Services (116), Sierra (102), and with far fewer considering Intota (37) or Kuali OLE (17). At this time, Intota has not been placed into production by any libraries and Kuali OLE has been implemented by two libraries for print resource management. It is not surprising that libraries show stronger interest in products that are at least in the early phase of adoption more than those that have not yet been proven.

The following table summarizes data provided on survey responses relating to whether the library is planning to migrate to a new system in the near future and candidate systems under consideration.

Current ILS Responses Shopping Percent Academic Alma WorldShare Intota Polaris Sierra SirsiDynix Koha Evergreen Kuali
ALEPH 500 114 63 55.3 50 32130083504
Horizon 109 38 34.9 14 652768911
Library.Solution 104 19 18.3 4 020310330
Millennium 178 117 65.7 90 45331235741261
Sierra 334 43 12.9 28 15146131400
Polaris 215 17 7.9 2 100023420
Symphony 459 83 18.1 41 181367981162
Voyager 120 83 69.2 59 472390105907
Carl.X 10 6 60.0 1 000300000
Amlib 20 12 60.0 0 020003100
Any Product 173116373210245902417

Note: These figures represent the number of times each product was mentioned among the candidates listed. The matrix lists only selected current ILS products and candidate systems under consideration. The sum of values given at the bottom of each column represents the total number of times the product was mentioned as a replacement candidate, including for products not among those selected for the table. The highlighted values indicate where the candidate system mentioned is provided by the same company as the incumbent.

International Perspective

top

The survey aims for a broad international perspective. Responses were received from the international clients of the systems commonly used in the United States as well as those that may be used primarily within other geographic regions or countries. A total of 829 responses were received from libraries located outside of the United States. Many of the products more familiar outside of the United States did not receive an adequate number of responses to appear in the main statistical tables.

ProductTotal responsesUnited StatesInternational
All Products3,4532,624829
Symphony459346113
Horizon2097336
Sierra33428846
Millennium17812751
Polaris21520411
Aleph1145460
Voyager12010218
Alma895534
Axiell Aurora35035
WorldShare Management Services948410
Absys.Net15015

top

Innovative

Libraries of all types and sizes and from most global regions have implemented the products of Innovative (view company profile). The company was well represented in this year’s survey results with 332 from libraries using Sierra, 215 using Polaris, 178 using Millennium, and 14 using Virtua, or 739 in total. Innovative saw a change of ownership in Mar 2012 and subsequently acquired Polaris (Mar 2014) and VTLS (Jun 2014). Polaris has historically been one of the top performers in this survey but has shown declining results since 2012. Satisfaction scores with Millennium were steadily strong through 2012 and have declined in each subsequent year. Satisfaction by Millennium may relate more to its secondary status following the introduction of Sierra in 2011. Sierra saw quite favorable scores in 2012 following its initial release (6.87), but has since seen some diminishment (6.18).

Sierra

top

Sierra (full statistical report and narrative comments) has been implemented by many types of libraries throughout many international regions. This year responses were completed by 148 academic libraries, 128 publics, and 21 consortia. This product received highest scores in the category of functionality for print resources: 7.17 for all library types, 7.55 for large academics, 7.63 for publics. Its lowest performance was seen for ILS support, with 7.17 overall, 4.3 for mid-sized publics, and 5.00 for mid-sized academics. Although loyalty scores were weak overall (5.40), large academics (4.95) showed less commitment to acquiring their next system from this company. When considering ratings given over time, ILS Support has declined from 7.96 in 2012 to 5.17 this year. General satisfaction increased slightly over last year up to 6.18 from 5.90. The number of libraries indicating consideration of moving to another system has increased from 3.2% in 2012 to 12.9 this year.

In the large public library category, Sierra (5.27) was rated below Polaris (7.77), Symphony (7.15), and Horizon (6.69).

SierraallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS3296.18 486.46556.16425.95745.97425.7951206.35
ILSFunctionality3296.48 486.54556.51426.29746.19426.3151206.95
PrintFunctionality3267.17 487.52557.33427.55726.53416.6351207.55
ElectronicFunctionality3225.43 465.54555.62415.00735.05415.4951195.26
SatisfactionCustomerSupport3225.17 465.54565.00425.29714.99404.3051205.00
CompanyLoyalty3235.40 475.49565.32424.95725.49415.0051205.60

Millennium

top

A decreasing number of libraries continue to use Millennium (full product report and narrative comments) with many shifting to Sierra and other products (see selection/deselection report). Of the libraries that continue to use Millennium, the proportion of academics are higher than publics compared to Sierra (see graph of Millennium sites by type). The numbers of responses from libraries using Millennium have declined since 2011 when 458 responded. Out of the 178 libraries which responded this year, 117 indicated interest in moving to a new system (65.7%). The percentages of libraries indicating interest in moving to a new system has increased from 6.4% in 2007 before the announcement of Sierra, to 56.9% last year. Alternatives mentioned included Sierra (57), followed by Alma (45), WMS (33), and Koha (12). While Innovative has seen positive results in positioning Sierra as the migration path for Millennium, many are also considering competing products.

When segmenting responses by collection size of responding libraries, large publics gave lower scores in general satisfaction (4.85), ILS functionality (5.25), and electronic functionality (3.80). Small publics indicated lower possibilities of selecting their next system from Innovative (4.23), with large publics showing the highest (5.57). All segments rated the ability of Millennium to manage print resources much more highly than its functionality for electronic resources.

Response data from previous years shows steady to rising ratings from 2007 through 2010, with decreasing responses subsequently. (General satisfaction: 2007: 7.17, 2008: 7.08, 2009: 7.13, 2010: 7.11, 2011: 6.88, 2012: 6.68, 2013: 6.44, 2014: 6.12, 2015: 5.77).

MillenniumallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1755.77 445.84555.71204.85145.2976.71325
ILSFunctionality1755.94 446.02555.82205.25145.7976.86325
PrintFunctionality1737.22 447.39537.04206.85146.7977.57325
ElectronicFunctionality1744.72 445.14544.57203.80144.2975.14325
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1725.20 435.56545.46193.53144.4375.71325
CompanyLoyalty1745.21 445.32555.29204.45134.2375.57325

Polaris

top

Polaris (full product report and narrative comments) has been implemented primarily by public libraries) primarily by public libraries within the United States and Canada, with 206 libraries responding to this year’s survey. Polaris continues to be well appreciated by large public libraries, earning top rankings in General Satisfaction (7.77), ILS functionality (7.58), and Print resource management (8.15). Polaris received quite positive ratings which were highest among larger libraries (7.60) than mid-sized (7.26) or small (7.26). Also ranked highest in this group for electronic resource management, but the score was a notch lower relative to other rankings (6.40). Within these categories Polaris slipped below SirsiDynix Symphony for Support Satisfaction (6.96) and company loyalty (6.81). Polaris shows strong retention, with only 17 out of 215 responses (7.9%) indicating interest in migrating to a new product. That number has generally increased from 1.6% in 2007 to 5.3% last year. In 2013 only 0.7% of libraries using Polaris indicated that they would consider changing their ILS.

In the mid-sized public library category, Polaris is well regarded with top rankings in ILS Functionality (7.49) and functionality for print (7.55).

From 2007 through 2012 Polaris consistently was rated as one of the top performing systems, though in 2008 libraries gave somewhat lower ratings. From 2012 through this year, ratings for Polaris have declined in all categories.

PolarisallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS2067.24 116.45001197.26427.26157.600177.53
ILSFunctionality2077.30 115.64001197.42427.36157.470187.44
PrintFunctionality2077.57 117.36001197.49427.57158.130187.78
ElectronicFunctionality2066.23 114.55001196.43416.51156.000186.17
SatisfactionCustomerSupport2046.90 116.09001166.91426.90157.330186.94
CompanyLoyalty1986.63 105.70001136.68406.90156.930186.11

Virtua

top

This year only 14 libraries using Virtua (full product report and narrative comments) responded to the survey. Half of these libraries indicated interest in migrating to a new system. Though the number of responses was too low for confident results, the ratings for general satisfaction, ILS support, and company satisfaction were up from last year, though still significantly down from those seen in 2013 when satisfaction in all categories was at its zenith. This year company loyalty declined (4.57) from the 2011 high in this category (6.23).

VirtuaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS136.23 12410000
ILSFunctionality146.21 12410010
PrintFunctionality147.79 12410010
ElectronicFunctionality144.93 12410010
SatisfactionCustomerSupport136.00 11410010
CompanyLoyalty144.57 12410010

Ex Libris

top

Ex Libris (view company profile) specializes in technologies for academic, research, and national libraries, offering a wide range of products and services, including its current Alma library services platform, as well as Aleph and Voyager integrated library systems. This year 88 libraries using Alma, 110 using Aleph, and 115 using Voyager responded to the survey. Its products have been implemented by libraries in all geographic regions. Ex Libris was acquired by ProQuest in December 2015. The libraries which have implemented Ex Libris products tend to be large and complex, and tend not to give superlative ratings as seen in products that serve larger libraries. The perceptions of customer support from Ex Libris are moderate this year. Among large academic libraries each of its products were rated consistently: Aleph (6.59), Alma (6.58), Voyager (6.50).

Alma

top

Alma (full product report and narrative comments), designed for academic, research, and national libraries (graph of Alma implementations by type) earned top rankings among large academic libraries for Overall Satisfaction, ILS functionality, Functionality for electronic resources and for company loyalty. In the area of print functionality, Alma ranked in fifth place (6.90), below Sierra (7.55), Aleph (7.44), Symphony (6.95), and Voyager (6.92). Among large academics, its functionality for electronic resources, was rated significantly higher (6.87) than the nearest competitor Sierra (5.00).

Among mid-sized academics, Alma was rated highest for overall functionality (6.59) and management of electronic resources (7.19).

A different set of dynamics are seen in the small academic library group. Koha, implemented independently lead (8.50), followed by Horizon (7.79) and Koha as supported by ByWater Solutions (7.33). In the small academic library group, Alma led for management for electronic resources (7.09).

Given the trend that large academic libraries devote much of their collection budgets to electronic resources, the perception that that Alma performs better for electronic than print is not necessarily bad news for Ex Libris.

AlmaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS886.40 116.36306.43316.6100002
ILSFunctionality886.39 117.00306.50316.4800002
PrintFunctionality876.77 116.82307.00316.9000002
ElectronicFunctionality876.91 117.09307.10316.8700002
SatisfactionCustomerSupport886.30 116.36306.27316.5800002
CompanyLoyalty846.96 106.10287.00317.3500002

Voyager

top

Voyager, (full product report and narrative comments), acquired by Ex Libris from Elsevier in Nov 2007, and developed specifically for academic libraries, (graph of Voyager implementations by type) though during a time when their collections included mostly print materials. Its legacy in print can be seen in its ratings were its functionality for print received its highest scores (6.90) and functionality for electronic resources received the lowest (4.05). In the categories of General Satisfaction and print functionality, mid-sized academics rated Voyager higher then small or large institutions. Large academic indicate a higher level of loyalty to Ex Libris (7.13) compared to small academics (5.72). Libraries running Voyager showed the most interest in migrating to a new system (83 out of 120 responses or 69.2 percent). Of these, 47 mention Alma among the products considered, 23 listed WorldShare Management Services, and 10 included Sierra. Scores across categories have improved substantially from 2007 through this year, with company loyalty showing the largest rise (2007: 4.15 to 2015: 6.27).

Voyager received top ratings from the mid-sized academic library responders for its functionality for print resources (7.36), though only a sliver above Symphony (7.35) and Sierra (7.34).

VoyagerallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1155.75 325.69255.80235.4800012
ILSFunctionality1155.90 326.09255.76235.1700012
PrintFunctionality1136.90 326.31247.46236.9100012
ElectronicFunctionality1134.05 304.27253.92233.5700012
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1136.08 325.41246.29236.5700012
CompanyLoyalty1156.27 325.72256.12237.1300012

Aleph

top

Aleph (full product report and narrative comments), an established ILS product created by Ex Libris primarily for academic libraries (graph of Aleph implementations by type) continues to be used in many libraries, though the numbers are diminishing, (see selection/deselection report) driven by Aleph’s orientation to print materials and the increasing dominance of electronic resources in academic libraries. Breaking the survey results by collection size, large academics generally gave higher scores than small or mid-sized. Large academics rated Aleph’s overall functionality at 6.52 compared to 5.08 for midsized institutions. Large academic libraries indicated a much higher likelihood that they would choose their next system from Ex Libris (7.08) than small academics (5.89). 63 out of 114 responses (55.3%) indicate interest in migrating to a new system. Alma ranked first among candidate systems mentioned (32), followed by WMS (13), Sierra (8), and Kuali OLE (4). During the period from 2007 to 2014, Aleph generally received improving scores across categories each year. This year, the scores dropped slightly, except for company loyalty, which remained constant.

ALEPH 500allAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1105.86 285.71255.08276.5251004
ILSFunctionality1105.80 286.07255.40275.6351004
PrintFunctionality1106.86 286.64256.48277.4451004
ElectronicFunctionality1073.81 284.00252.76264.0851004
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1096.08 285.82254.92276.5950004
CompanyLoyalty1066.29 275.89255.64267.0850004

OCLC

top

OCLC, a non-profit membership organization (view company profile), offers many different products and services to libraries. Relevant to this report, OCLC has developed WorldShare Management Services and WorldCat discovery service. The organization also supports multiple legacy ILS products, including Amlib. This year 93 libraries using WorldShare Management Services responded to the survey as well as 19 using Amlib.

WorldShare Management Services

top

A total of 93 libraries using WorldShare Management Services (full product report and narrative comments), from OCLC responded to this year’s survey. This product has been implemented primarily in academic libraries; (graph of WorldShare Management Services implementations by type) all responses to this year’s survey for WMS were from academic libraries, except for 2 public libraries, 1 school, and 1 consortium. When segmented by collection size, small academics gave higher ratings than mid-sized or large. In the category of General Satisfaction, large academics rated WMS 6.33, compared to 7.09 for those with small collections. Mid-sized academic libraries expressed stronger loyalty to OCLC (7.69) compared to large institutions (6.33). Libraries gave WorldShare Management Services higher ratings in 2011 when it first appeared in survey results, with a dramatic decline in 2012. From 2012 through 2015 ratings have gradually increased, except for a minor dip in support and loyalty rankings in 2015 compared to last year;

Among mid-sized Academic libraries, OCLC WorldShare Management Services was rated highest for overall satisfaction (6.93), customer support (7.10), and company loyalty (7.69).

OCLC’s WorldShare Management System did not receive enough responses to appear in the large academic category, but in the mid-sized academic group, it rated second in functionality for electronic resources (6.59) below Alma (7.19).

WorldShare Management ServicesallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS936.97 347.09296.9396.3320011
ILSFunctionality936.45 346.59296.2495.5620011
PrintFunctionality937.19 347.44297.1496.5620011
ElectronicFunctionality926.60 336.61296.5996.1120011
SatisfactionCustomerSupport927.07 347.09297.1087.1320011
CompanyLoyalty917.21 337.36297.6996.3320011

Amlib

top

This year’s survey included 15 responses from libraries using Amlib (full product report and narrative comments), an integrated library system also supported by OCLC. Its ratings appeared on only a small number of statistics tables since the number of responses fall below the threshold. The product did appear in the tables that aggregated all responses for public libraries.

AmliballAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS194.42 000174.711000
ILSFunctionality194.95 000175.291000
PrintFunctionality185.50 000165.501000
ElectronicFunctionality183.72 000164.001000
SatisfactionCustomerSupport195.32 000175.591000
CompanyLoyalty194.00 000174.181000

SirsiDynix

top

SirsiDynix (view company profile), provides its Symphony, Horizon, and EOS.Web integrated library systems and is developing a set of web-based complementary products delivered through its new BLUEcloud platform. The company saw a new ownership arrangement in December 2014 through its acquisition by ICV Partners from Vista Equity Partners.

This year 436 libraries using Symphony responded to the survey, more than any previous year (2015: 436, 2014: 354, 2013: 315, 2012: 380, 2011: 326, 2010: 271, 2009: 304, 2008: 233, 2007: 284). Another 108 libraries using Horizon and 33 using EOS.Web completed responses.

Following the acquisition of SirsiDynix by Vista Equity Partners in 2006, ratings for both Symphony and Horizon dropped for all categories in 2008, but have improved every year since. Looking at this trend demonstrates that while there may be negative fallout following a business event, that a company can work to improve its perceptions over time.

Symphony

top

SirsiDynix Symphony (full product report and narrative comments), finds use all types and sizes of libraries and in many throughout international regions.

Large academic libraries gave Symphony its lowest ratings in general satisfaction (5.32), schools rated it highest (7.38), but the much larger numbers of responses from public libraries were high: an average rating of 6.90 by the 172 small publics, 6.92 by mid-sized publics, and 6.92 by large public libraries.

Symphony fared less well for functionality related to managing electronic resources, especially among large academics (3.33); large publics rated Symphony 6.08 in this area.

Loyalty to Symphony is stronger among public libraries (large: 7.33, med: 6.61, small: 6.50) relative to academics (large: 4.37, med: 5.61, small: 6.00). Libraries overall viewed the functionality of Symphony as strong for print resources (7.16) and weaker for electronic (5.66).

SirsiDynix Symphony has seen steadily improving ratings in this survey since 2008.

SymphonyallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS4366.67 546.35336.21195.321726.90576.79126.92217.38267.15
ILSFunctionality4356.63 546.43336.18194.891716.88576.74127.33217.43267.15
PrintFunctionality4367.16 547.07337.36196.951727.15577.19127.67217.62267.50
ElectronicFunctionality4315.66 545.35334.61183.331706.03575.37126.08206.70266.62
SatisfactionCustomerSupport4266.92 536.75336.94197.111666.88567.04127.50197.47267.31
CompanyLoyalty4326.35 546.00335.61194.371696.50576.61127.33217.05267.42

Horizon

top

Libraries using Horizon (full product report and narrative comments), increasingly seem less interested in changing, from a high of 49.3 percent in 2008 to 34.9 this year. Horizon, implemented in many types of libraries, is the only legacy system showing decreased numbers in libraries considering migrating to a new system (see selection/deselection report). Of the 38 libraries considering migration, 14 are academic.

Horizon received higher ratings from public libraries than from academics. Mid-sized academics gave Horizon an average rating of 5.00 compared to 6.60 by large publics. Its print functionality was rated higher (7.11) than that for electronic resources (4.61) overall. Mid-sized academics rated Horizon’s functionality for electronic resources even lower (2.50). Loyalty to SirsiDynix for libraries using Horizon is quite strong for med-sized public libraries (6.88) and low for mid-sized academics (3.75). Interestingly, small academics showed the highest loyalty to SirsiDynix (8.00).

HorizonallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1086.23 147.79125.003286.32256.6076.43166.00
ILSFunctionality1086.19 147.50125.173286.32256.3276.43165.83
PrintFunctionality1087.11 147.93126.503286.82257.4476.86167.33
ElectronicFunctionality1064.61 136.38122.503284.93255.2074.71163.83
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1066.82 148.07125.673276.59257.2075.86067.33
CompanyLoyalty1086.13 148.00123.753286.32256.8876.86165.17

EOS.Web

top

EOS.Web (full product report and narrative comments), acquired by SirsiDynix in November 2013, received 33 responses in this year's survey. The product is used mostly by special libraries and does not appear in the statistical summary tables in this report. In almost all categories, ratings for EOS.Web have been declining since 2011, a year when this product received superlative scores. This year's rating of 7.21 for satisfaction of support and 7.64 of functionality for managing print resources reflect very strong performance. EOS.Web customers gave SirsiDynix superlative ratings for support (8.00). Perceptions for company loyalty improved dramatically.

EOS.WeballAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS337.21 96.330000000
ILSFunctionality337.21 96.000000000
PrintFunctionality337.64 96.890000000
ElectronicFunctionality315.97 84.750000000
SatisfactionCustomerSupport338.00 97.670000000
CompanyLoyalty337.39 96.440000000

The Library Corporation

top

The Library Corporation (view company profile) working primarily with public libraries, offers the Library.Solution and CARL.X integrated library systems. This year there were 102 responses from libraries using Library.Solution and 9 for libraries using Carl.X.

Library.Solution

top

Library.Solution (full product report and narrative comments), implemented primarily in small to mid-sized public libraries performed best in the mid-sized public library arena. This group gave Library.Solution top rankings for functionality for electronic resources in (6.76) and second highest for print functionality (7.52). This product did not appear in the summary tables for very large or very small public libraries. Among small public libraries, Library.Solution was generally ranked in the middle tier. In overall product satisfaction, for example, small public libraries gave Library.Solution a rating of 7.72.

Library.SolutionallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1027.21 95.8920637.3077.290137.231
ILSFunctionality1027.16 96.3320637.1677.570137.151
PrintFunctionality1027.67 97.6720637.5177.860137.771
ElectronicFunctionality996.89 95.7820617.0376.860136.231
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1027.66 97.0020637.7376.430137.771
CompanyLoyalty1016.92 95.2220637.1466.330136.541

Carl.X

top

Carl.x (full product report and narrative comments), is used primarily by large municipal libraries and consortia. With only 9 responses this year, Carl.X does not appear in the statistical tables. Ratings given for Carl.X were substantially lower this year than those given last year.

Carl.XallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS95.56 10021301
ILSFunctionality95.78 10021301
PrintFunctionality96.33 10021301
ElectronicFunctionality94.78 10021301
SatisfactionCustomerSupport95.78 10021301
CompanyLoyalty94.89 10021301

Biblionix

top

Biblionix (view company profile) is a small family-owned and managed business based in Austin, TX that focuses entirely on small public libraries and has developed Apollo an entirely web-based ILS deployed through a multi-tenant platform. This year 110 libraries using Apollo responded to the survey, all from public libraries.

Apollo

top

Apollo (full product report and narrative comments), is a Web-based integrated library system implemented only by public libraries with small or mid-sized collections. This product garnered top scores for small and very small public libraries for almost all categories. This product has seen very consistent rankings for all the years it has appeared in the survey. The only category in which Apollo did not lead among these two groups was loyalty to company question, in which Equinox received a fractionally higher score (8.25 vs 8.23).

Apollo continues to receive superlative rankings in this survey from small public libraries. This product has received consistently exceptional performance since it first appeared on the survey in 2009. This year small public libraries gave Apollo top scores in general satisfaction (8.63), product functionality (8.48), print management (8.54), management of electronic resources (8.17), and company loyalty (8.38). Apollo also topped the charts in each of these categories in the very small public library category. Within the realm of small public libraries, Apollo has exceptionally happy customers.

ApolloallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1108.63 0001108.630000
ILSFunctionality1098.48 0001098.480000
PrintFunctionality1108.54 0001108.540000
ElectronicFunctionality1058.17 0001058.170000
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1098.78 0001098.780000
CompanyLoyalty1088.38 0001088.380000

Book Systems, Inc.

top

Book Systems (view company profile) develops software used primarily in schools and small public libraries, primarily in the United States.

Atriuum

This year 133 libraries using Atriuum (full product report and narrative comments), from Book Systems responded to the survey; 114 were from small public libraries and 12 from school libraries. The company earned its strongest ratings in customer support (8.15). School libraries (8.00) gave Atriuum slightly better scores than the small publics 7.75) in general satisfaction, though in print functionality schools (8.33) gave more positive scores than publics (7.76).

AtriuumallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1337.74 0001147.7511128.001
ILSFunctionality1337.56 0001147.6111127.421
PrintFunctionality1307.78 0001127.7611128.330
ElectronicFunctionality1177.00 0001017.0110106.801
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1318.15 0001128.1311128.171
CompanyLoyalty1307.40 0001117.3111127.921

Civica

top

Civica operates primarily outside of the United States, with a strong presence in the United Kingdom, Asia, and Australia, and serves mostly public and school libraries.

Spydus

top

This year 21 libraries using Spydus (full product report and narrative comments), from Civica responded to the survey, with most coming from small and mid-sized public libraries and all from outside the United States. Spydus was the top performer in the mid-sized public library category for general ILS satisfaction (7.52). Since 2011 ratings for Spydus have been consistent and generally positive in all categories.

SpydusallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS417.05 410217.29127.08101
ILSFunctionality417.00 410217.24127.08101
PrintFunctionality397.10 410197.26126.92101
ElectronicFunctionality395.49 410195.74126.08101
SatisfactionCustomerSupport406.88 310217.33126.42101
CompanyLoyalty386.74 310197.32126.75101

Koha

top

Support providerResponsesGeneral Satisfaction
All Installations2707.43
ByWater Solutions1527.43
Independent447.89
LibLime326.41
PTFS Europe77.86
BibLibre78.00
Catalyst57.00
Calyx4--
Kobli 3--
Equinox3--
eScire2--
Interleaf Technology4--

Koha (full product report and narrative comments), an open source integrated library system has been implemented by libraries of all types and in all parts of the world.

As an open source ILS, Koha can be downloaded and installed by libraries on their own, though many contract for installation, support, or hosting from commercial or non-profit support organizations. Those implementing Koha on their own are designated "Koha -- Independent" and others are qualified by the name of the support firm. The following table summarizes the number of libraries using Koha, their support arrangement, the number responses, and the general product support rating. Those with fewer than 6 responses fall below the threshold of performing the statistical calculations. This year 270 libraries using Koha responded to the survey. Libraries of all types use Koha, reflected in this year’s responses:

  • Consortia: 10
  • School: 13
  • Large Academic: 1
  • Medium Academic: 9
  • Small Academic: 51
  • Large Public: 1
  • Medium Public: 9
  • Small Public: 106

When aggregating response scores across all support arrangements, ratings given to Koha have been slowly rising since 2011. Scores saw a sharp peak in 2010, while 2008 and 2009 were much lower than previous or subsequent years.

KohaallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS2707.43 517.4997.3311067.5497.331136.15107.40
ILSFunctionality2717.31 517.4797.1111067.3797.111136.38106.90
PrintFunctionality2687.60 507.4097.3311057.6897.441136.6998.33
ElectronicFunctionality2566.19 505.7686.001996.4896.561126.17104.70
SatisfactionCustomerSupport2587.37 507.4876.5711017.5697.221136.85107.80
CompanyLoyalty2516.92 446.7786.6311037.2587.001135.00107.70

ByWater Solutions

top

ByWater Solutions (view company profile) offers support services for Koha, with most of its client libraries located in the United States. ByWater serves many different types of libraries (see charts for library type and library size). This year’s breakdown included 91 public libraries, 32 academics, 6 consortia, and 6 schools (full product report and narrative comments). Scores were generally strongest among its med-sized public library clients (7.63), with small academic libraries only slightly weaker (7.33); schools were significantly less satisfied (4.33). 95.45 percent of its clients reported that their system was implemented on schedule. When comparing rankings across the multiple years of the survey, ByWater has seen decreasing satisfaction from 2010 through 2014, with a very slight improvement in 2015.

Koha -- ByWater SolutionsallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1527.43 277.3340817.6377.71064.3367.33
ILSFunctionality1527.20 277.2240817.4077.29064.6766.83
PrintFunctionality1507.61 267.5840807.7277.57065.0068.50
ElectronicFunctionality1406.35 265.8530756.5676.86054.2065.17
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1497.70 277.8540797.7378.14066.6767.50
CompanyLoyalty1467.34 257.6840807.3867.67064.3367.00

Evergreen

top

Evergreen, (full product report and narrative comments). an open source ILS implemented primarily in consortia of public libraries received 110 survey responses this year. Of these responses, 83 were from small public libraries, 8 from medium sized public libraries, 7 from small academics, and 2 from mid-sized academics (see charts for library type and library size). Evergreen received the highest ratings for its print functionality (7.55) and lowest for functionality for electronic resources (6.19).

Most libraries using Evergreen rely on Equinox Software for hosting and support services, with a minority of implementations operate without commercially-povided support services.

EvergreenallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1107.18 77.4320837.3486.00004
ILSFunctionality1097.12 77.4320827.3285.63004
PrintFunctionality1107.55 77.7120837.6086.50004
ElectronicFunctionality1046.19 75.8620786.4174.29004
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1057.46 78.1410797.7286.88004
CompanyLoyalty1027.22 76.8610777.3087.13004

Follett School Solutions

top

Follett ranks as the leading provider of technology products for school libraries, with around 70 percent of the public school libraries in the United States using its Destiny products (chart of implementations by library type). OPALS holds a fraction of the market share in the school library sector compared to Destiny, though libraries running OPALS respond enthusiastically to this survey. The libraries using Destiny also tend to be larger, with an average collection size of 183,623, than those using OPALS with an average collection size of 126,100. As in other categories, larger and more complex libraries tend to give lower scores than smaller ones. In the school library sector, there were not enough responses to segment responses according to size categories.

Destiny

top

Follett has developed its Destiny ILS primarily for the PreK-12 school library sector, though it is also used in small public libraries. This year 121 libraries using Destiny responded to the survey, with 80 from schools and 44 from small public libraries (full product report and narrative comments). It is not surprising that school libraries rated Destiny higher than did public libraries. The general ILS satisfaction rating for school libraries was 7.63 and 6.93 for publics. Destiny received its highest marks for print functionality (7.62) and customer support (7.50) and was seen as weakest in functionality for electronic resources (6.11). This year libraries using Destiny gave ratings slightly improved over last year (7.14), following a trend of steady improvement since 2010 (6.65).

DestinyallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1317.37 400446.9300807.631
ILSFunctionality1317.28 400446.7300807.601
PrintFunctionality1297.62 400436.7900798.111
ElectronicFunctionality1246.11 400425.9800756.231
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1297.50 400437.3500797.571
CompanyLoyalty1267.10 400436.5800767.421

Circulation Plus, Athena, Winnebago Spectrum

Follett’s legacy products continue to see use, through the numbers are diminishing. This year 4 libraries using Winnebago Spectrum and one each using Athena and Circulation Plus responded to the survey.

OPALS

top

The open source OPALS ILS (full product report and narrative comments) implemented primarily in school libraries (chart of implementations by library type), received its usual enthusiastic response, with 207 libraries using OPALS completing the survey. OPALS was developed and supported by Media Flex, Inc. (view company profile). Many libraries using OPALS receive support services from their district rather than from Media Flex directly. In the state of New York, many of the BOCES provide OPALS for the school libraries they support. This year, 136 responses for OPALS came from school libraries, 18 from consortia, and 9 from small academic libraries.

OPALS received top ratings in all categories by libraries serving PreK-12 Schools: Overall satisfaction (8.64), ILS functionality (8.63), print functionality (8.65), electronic resource functionality (8.01), and company loyalty (8.60).

OPALSallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS2078.58 98.11005001368.64188.67
ILSFunctionality2088.52 97.89005001368.63188.56
PrintFunctionality2078.62 98.22005001358.65188.72
ElectronicFunctionality1808.02 77.57002001248.01158.20
SatisfactionCustomerSupport2038.69 98.56005001328.73188.94
CompanyLoyalty2058.55 98.67005001368.60188.78

Kuali OLE

top

No libraries using Kuali OLE responded to this year’s survey, though it was mentioned as a possible migration option. 31 libraries indicating interest in moving to a new system mentioned Kuali OLE among the candidate systems under consideration.


Selected Statistical Tables

Emphasis on Peer Groups

top

Public, academic, school, and special libraries each have distinct expectations for their automation products. Previous editions of survey report presented results in comprehensive tables that aggregate results given across all types and sizes of libraries. With the increased number of responses, combined with the enrichment of survey responses with demographic data from each responding library from its entry in the libraries.org directory, for the last three years the results have been presented primarily within peer groups. Separate tables are included for the key areas of ILS satisfaction and functionality completeness for public, academic, and school libraries and according to collection size categories.

Tables assembled according to peer groups provide a more fair set comparisons as libraries consider the best products and providers to meet their future automation needs.

This approach enables libraries to make more balanced comparisons and interpretations of the results. Presenting results through amalgamated tables gives a false impression that the products that serve very small libraries perform at a higher level than more sophisticated products designed to serve larger and more complex automation scenarios. Stronger and weaker products emerge more clearly when presented within tables organized by library type and collection size. Examples of the category combination tables are presented below. The interactive version of the survey results dynamically assembles statistical result tables according to any combination of report category, library type, collection size, and country.

Public Libraries

top

Large Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2015)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2015)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris26 1 9 11 5 87.778 1.57
Symphony34 1 5 17 10 1 77.157 1.20
Horizon16 1 4 10 1 76.697 1.75
Sierra22 1 2 1 1 6 4 6 1 55.276 1.49
All Responses127 1 2 2 1 4 10 17 50 30 10 76.757 0.71

Large Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2015)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris26 4 7 11 4 87.588 1.57
Symphony34 2 4 13 14 1 87.247 1.20
Horizon16 1 1 4 9 1 76.507 1.75
Sierra22 1 1 4 2 5 7 2 75.736 1.28
All Responses127 1 2 1 6 10 18 44 38 7 76.807 0.71

Large Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2015)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris26 3 16 7 88.158 1.57
Symphony34 1 3 8 15 7 87.568 1.37
Horizon16 1 2 5 6 2 87.388 2.00
Sierra21 2 1 6 6 6 66.627 1.75
All Responses126 1 1 3 2 2 13 29 56 19 87.348 0.71

Large Public Libraries: effectiveness for electronic resources (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2015)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris25 2 4 8 5 3 3 66.406 1.20
Symphony34 1 2 1 2 9 4 7 8 55.796 1.03
Sierra22 1 7 2 7 4 1 45.326 1.28
Horizon16 1 1 2 1 3 3 4 1 75.136 1.75
All Responses124 1 5 5 7 12 21 24 28 17 4 75.656 0.45

Large Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2015)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Symphony34 1 1 4 8 13 7 87.538 1.37
Polaris26 1 2 4 2 4 6 7 96.968 1.57
Horizon16 1 4 1 4 3 3 56.817 1.75
Sierra22 1 3 1 5 7 1 1 1 2 43.734 1.49
All Responses127 2 4 2 7 13 15 11 20 29 24 86.387 0.35

Large Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2015)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Symphony34 2 5 10 9 8 77.478 1.37
Horizon16 1 2 2 3 3 5 97.258 2.00
Polaris26 1 1 6 1 5 7 5 86.817 1.37
Sierra21 5 1 3 2 3 3 2 2 04.435 1.53
All Responses125 8 2 4 4 17 12 25 25 28 96.517 0.80

Medium-sized Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2015)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Spydus21 3 5 12 1 87.528 1.75
Polaris65 1 3 8 30 17 6 77.187 0.74
Library.Solution25 1 1 2 2 5 8 6 87.168 1.20
Koha -- ByWater Solutions16 1 2 1 4 3 5 97.068 0.00
Evergreen -- Equinox Software13 1 1 3 3 4 1 86.857 1.94
Symphony85 3 1 3 11 12 32 21 2 76.567 0.65
Horizon30 2 3 3 4 9 9 76.407 1.10
Sierra57 2 1 2 3 2 8 12 17 8 2 75.886 0.00
Millennium12 3 2 2 4 1 75.336 2.02
All Responses402 3 4 10 10 14 42 59 136 96 28 76.587 0.00

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2015)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris65 3 4 23 28 7 87.498 0.87
Spydus21 2 10 8 1 77.387 1.75
Library.Solution25 1 1 1 3 3 13 3 87.208 1.60
Koha -- ByWater Solutions16 1 1 3 3 6 2 87.138 1.50
Evergreen -- Equinox Software13 2 2 6 2 1 76.697 1.94
Symphony85 4 1 2 12 15 27 21 3 76.517 0.65
Sierra57 2 1 1 1 2 5 11 20 12 2 76.307 0.66
Horizon30 2 1 5 3 3 5 10 1 86.137 0.37
Millennium12 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 55.506 2.02
All Responses400 2 2 12 9 16 36 61 119 117 26 76.677 0.25

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2015)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Polaris65 1 1 4 2 13 31 13 87.558 0.87
Library.Solution25 1 1 1 1 3 12 6 87.528 1.60
Spydus20 1 1 1 6 7 4 87.358 2.01
Koha -- ByWater Solutions16 1 2 1 3 4 5 97.198 0.25
Symphony85 2 2 2 2 15 23 32 7 87.017 0.65
Evergreen -- Equinox Software13 1 1 3 4 2 2 76.857 1.94
Horizon30 1 1 4 5 4 13 2 86.808 1.46
Millennium12 1 1 1 1 2 5 1 86.758 2.31
Sierra56 2 1 3 1 1 7 20 17 4 76.667 0.00
All Responses399 4 5 4 9 11 24 48 96 145 53 87.027 0.00

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2015)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Library.Solution25 1 1 4 2 9 4 4 76.767 1.00
Koha -- ByWater Solutions16 1 1 2 4 2 3 3 66.447 0.25
Polaris65 1 4 2 14 12 19 11 2 76.186 0.74
Spydus20 1 1 1 1 3 5 3 5 65.806 1.79
Symphony83 2 4 10 9 11 13 16 13 5 75.646 0.55
Evergreen -- Equinox Software12 2 1 3 3 2 1 55.506 1.73
Sierra55 3 2 5 3 4 5 14 13 4 2 65.226 0.67
Horizon30 1 3 4 1 2 5 2 4 6 2 85.105 0.37
Millennium12 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 14.676 2.02
All Responses393 10 16 21 27 29 56 69 89 56 20 75.606 0.05

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2015)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- ByWater Solutions15 1 1 2 2 2 7 97.478 1.03
Spydus21 1 1 1 7 9 2 87.338 1.53
Library.Solution25 1 1 2 2 1 4 6 8 97.088 1.20
Polaris65 3 10 12 8 21 11 87.037 0.74
Horizon29 1 1 2 3 9 10 3 86.867 1.49
Symphony81 1 3 3 3 8 11 18 22 12 86.707 0.78
Evergreen -- Equinox Software12 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 86.258 2.31
Millennium12 1 2 1 2 2 4 74.586 1.73
Sierra55 4 4 9 1 7 7 7 9 5 2 24.565 0.00
All Responses391 6 10 17 15 24 36 52 80 92 59 86.407 0.00

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '100001') (CollectionSize < '500000') (2015)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Spydus21 1 1 2 5 7 5 87.438 1.96
Koha -- ByWater Solutions15 2 1 1 1 2 8 97.409 1.03
Library.Solution24 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 6 8 96.678 1.84
Polaris61 1 2 4 4 4 7 15 12 12 76.617 0.38
Symphony83 4 1 1 6 12 12 14 19 14 86.477 0.66
Evergreen -- Equinox Software11 2 1 3 1 3 1 66.096 2.41
Horizon30 1 1 4 3 1 2 7 7 4 75.977 0.37
Millennium12 1 3 1 1 2 3 1 25.427 2.60
Sierra56 5 3 4 6 10 6 10 7 5 55.346 0.00
All Responses387 22 6 19 15 26 40 43 66 78 72 86.167 0.00

Small Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2015)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo36 1 6 29 98.789 1.33
Atriuum43 1 1 3 8 14 16 97.888 1.22
Library.Solution32 1 1 1 8 11 10 87.728 1.41
Koha -- ByWater Solutions37 1 1 1 2 11 8 13 97.578 0.99
Evergreen -- Equinox Software31 1 1 6 5 13 5 87.328 1.62
Polaris56 2 4 9 15 14 12 77.207 0.80
Destiny15 1 2 5 2 5 66.806 2.32
Symphony68 2 1 2 4 6 7 15 22 9 86.747 0.85
VERSO38 2 2 5 5 10 11 3 86.687 1.46
Horizon12 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 76.257 2.31
Sierra25 2 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 3 75.686 1.00
All Responses474 3 5 11 13 18 30 57 96 122 119 87.078 0.37

Small Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2015)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo36 2 13 21 98.539 1.33
Atriuum43 2 2 3 9 12 15 97.638 1.07
Library.Solution32 1 1 3 5 13 9 87.598 1.24
Evergreen -- Equinox Software31 3 3 6 16 3 87.328 1.44
Polaris56 1 7 8 9 19 12 87.298 0.80
Koha -- ByWater Solutions37 1 2 4 12 12 6 77.197 0.99
VERSO38 2 2 2 6 12 12 2 76.797 1.46
Symphony68 1 1 2 2 10 10 12 22 8 86.757 0.85
Destiny15 1 3 5 1 1 4 66.676 2.32
Horizon12 1 6 3 1 1 66.586 2.60
Sierra25 2 3 2 3 4 3 6 2 85.886 0.60
All Responses474 4 9 16 13 35 69 84 148 96 87.068 0.37

Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2015)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo36 1 1 2 6 26 98.399 1.50
Library.Solution32 1 1 1 4 11 14 97.978 1.41
Atriuum41 1 1 3 6 8 22 97.889 0.62
Evergreen -- Equinox Software31 2 5 2 15 7 87.588 1.62
Horizon12 3 2 6 1 87.428 2.31
Koha -- ByWater Solutions37 1 1 2 9 13 11 87.388 1.32
Polaris56 2 1 3 4 11 21 14 87.368 0.80
Symphony67 1 4 7 5 14 24 12 87.158 0.86
VERSO37 1 1 2 6 6 17 4 87.058 1.48
Destiny15 1 1 1 3 2 4 3 86.677 2.07
Sierra25 1 2 1 4 1 4 5 6 1 85.806 0.20
All Responses467 10 4 6 7 19 23 41 74 152 131 87.258 0.42

Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2015)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo35 1 1 2 11 20 98.269 1.35
Library.Solution30 1 1 3 2 3 12 8 87.408 1.46
Atriuum37 1 2 2 3 2 7 9 11 97.058 1.15
Koha -- ByWater Solutions33 1 1 1 3 3 5 5 10 4 86.457 0.87
Polaris56 2 2 3 3 7 4 14 13 8 76.397 0.67
Evergreen -- Equinox Software29 1 1 2 3 1 4 3 13 1 86.317 1.11
VERSO33 1 1 1 2 2 2 6 8 7 3 76.127 1.57
Destiny15 4 2 1 1 1 3 3 25.676 2.07
Symphony67 6 5 1 5 9 8 16 13 4 75.556 0.86
Sierra25 3 1 2 2 3 5 6 2 1 74.806 0.80
Horizon12 1 1 2 4 3 1 54.425 0.00
All Responses450 19 17 18 18 35 42 46 79 106 70 86.147 0.38

Small Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2015)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo35 1 4 30 98.839 1.52
Atriuum43 2 2 1 5 10 23 98.059 1.22
Library.Solution32 1 6 13 12 88.008 1.24
Koha -- ByWater Solutions37 1 1 1 2 6 9 17 97.768 1.32
Evergreen -- Equinox Software31 1 3 1 3 10 13 97.588 1.62
VERSO37 1 3 5 5 13 10 87.418 1.48
Destiny15 1 1 3 3 4 3 87.007 2.07
Symphony66 1 1 3 3 3 5 6 12 19 13 86.707 0.86
Polaris56 2 3 6 6 7 7 10 15 96.637 0.53
Horizon12 1 1 3 3 2 2 56.337 2.31
Sierra23 3 2 5 1 1 2 3 4 2 34.835 0.00
All Responses466 5 7 8 16 25 29 43 61 115 157 97.158 0.37

Small Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '30001') (CollectionSize < '100000') (2015)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo35 1 5 29 98.609 1.52
Atriuum41 1 1 1 1 2 6 7 22 97.809 1.25
Library.Solution32 1 1 1 2 3 15 9 87.598 1.41
Koha -- ByWater Solutions36 3 1 1 2 1 10 18 97.479 1.33
Horizon12 5 2 2 3 67.257 2.60
Evergreen -- Equinox Software30 2 1 5 1 3 10 8 86.938 1.64
Destiny14 2 4 1 1 2 4 56.647 2.41
Polaris55 3 1 2 5 3 6 7 15 13 86.588 0.54
VERSO37 1 2 3 4 8 4 9 6 86.497 1.48
Symphony68 4 3 1 1 3 9 9 12 18 8 86.167 0.61
Sierra24 1 4 3 1 3 4 3 4 1 25.086 1.22
All Responses460 21 10 10 12 20 40 47 48 107 145 96.798 0.42

Very Small Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1') (CollectionSize < '30000') (2015)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo70 1 6 15 48 98.569 1.08
Evergreen -- Equinox Software20 2 6 1 11 98.059 2.01
Koha -- ByWater Solutions33 1 4 4 11 13 97.948 1.39
Atriuum68 1 2 2 1 4 10 18 30 97.728 0.97
Polaris27 1 1 4 6 8 7 87.448 1.73
Symphony53 1 1 1 6 18 14 12 77.347 1.10
ResourceMate11 2 5 1 3 77.277 2.11
Destiny28 1 2 2 5 4 6 8 97.118 1.13
VERSO67 1 4 9 5 18 19 11 87.017 0.86
Sierra17 5 2 4 3 3 56.827 2.18
LibraryWorld16 1 1 1 4 3 4 2 66.567 1.75
Library.Solution13 1 1 1 2 3 4 1 86.547 2.22
All Responses532 5 3 8 9 18 36 52 109 123 169 97.298 0.35

Very Small Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1') (CollectionSize < '30000') (2015)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo69 1 1 4 19 44 98.519 0.96
Evergreen -- Equinox Software20 3 4 1 12 98.109 2.01
Koha -- ByWater Solutions33 1 1 3 5 14 9 87.738 1.22
Atriuum68 2 2 1 1 6 10 20 26 97.638 0.97
ResourceMate11 1 4 4 2 77.558 2.41
Polaris27 1 1 3 6 10 6 87.488 1.73
Symphony51 1 2 5 18 16 9 77.337 0.98
Sierra17 4 3 3 3 4 57.007 2.18
Destiny28 1 1 3 5 8 5 5 76.867 1.13
VERSO67 1 5 8 4 27 15 7 76.847 0.86
LibraryWorld16 2 1 1 1 6 4 1 76.387 1.75
Library.Solution13 1 1 2 2 4 2 1 76.237 2.22
All Responses529 4 3 13 6 16 35 51 120 133 148 97.248 0.30

Very Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1') (CollectionSize < '30000') (2015)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo70 2 2 16 50 98.639 1.08
Koha -- ByWater Solutions32 1 1 1 13 16 98.319 1.41
Evergreen -- Equinox Software20 1 4 3 12 98.309 1.79
Polaris27 2 1 4 12 8 87.858 1.73
Atriuum68 1 3 1 2 3 10 20 28 97.728 0.97
ResourceMate10 1 3 3 3 77.708 2.85
Sierra16 2 2 4 3 5 97.448 2.25
Symphony53 1 3 2 4 18 15 10 77.237 0.96
VERSO66 6 1 7 27 18 7 77.087 0.86
Destiny27 1 6 1 10 4 5 76.937 0.96
Library.Solution13 2 1 3 3 3 1 66.547 2.22
LibraryWorld16 2 2 1 5 5 1 76.507 2.00
All Responses527 5 2 5 9 20 29 39 110 141 167 97.408 0.35

Very Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1') (CollectionSize < '30000') (2015)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo66 1 2 2 7 10 44 98.299 1.11
Evergreen -- Equinox Software18 1 2 1 4 3 7 97.288 1.89
Polaris27 2 2 3 8 4 8 77.117 1.73
Atriuum61 2 1 2 1 2 4 5 9 17 18 97.008 1.02
Koha -- ByWater Solutions31 2 1 1 5 1 5 8 8 86.748 0.00
Symphony53 2 1 1 3 6 7 12 13 8 86.627 0.96
Library.Solution13 2 2 1 4 2 2 76.627 2.50
VERSO52 1 3 4 5 5 16 13 5 76.607 0.97
ResourceMate11 2 4 2 3 76.457 2.71
Destiny26 1 1 3 4 5 6 6 76.276 0.78
LibraryWorld16 1 2 2 2 3 5 1 86.137 1.25
Sierra17 2 1 1 4 1 3 2 3 55.656 2.18
All Responses491 22 6 11 15 28 52 40 96 95 126 96.627 0.00

Very Small Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1') (CollectionSize < '30000') (2015)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo70 4 10 56 98.749 1.08
Evergreen -- Equinox Software18 3 2 13 98.569 2.12
ResourceMate11 1 1 2 7 98.279 2.71
Atriuum66 1 2 1 1 6 11 44 98.219 1.11
Koha -- ByWater Solutions32 1 2 4 1 10 14 97.848 1.24
Library.Solution13 3 1 7 2 87.628 2.50
Polaris24 1 3 3 12 5 87.588 1.84
VERSO67 1 1 3 5 21 17 19 77.558 0.61
Destiny27 1 1 1 3 7 2 12 97.528 1.35
Symphony51 1 1 4 7 12 15 11 87.248 0.84
LibraryWorld14 1 1 5 1 5 1 66.437 1.60
Sierra16 1 1 4 5 3 2 76.387 2.25
All Responses516 8 2 6 9 13 26 39 86 115 212 97.538 0.31

Very Small Public Libraries: Company loyalty (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '1') (CollectionSize < '30000') (2015)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Evergreen -- Equinox Software20 1 1 1 5 12 98.259 1.79
Apollo69 2 1 1 1 2 1 11 50 98.239 1.08
Polaris24 1 1 3 2 9 8 87.588 1.84
Koha -- ByWater Solutions33 1 1 3 6 2 9 11 97.218 1.22
ResourceMate11 1 2 1 1 2 4 97.098 2.71
Atriuum67 4 2 2 1 2 3 5 2 16 30 97.078 0.98
Sierra16 1 1 4 2 3 5 96.758 2.25
VERSO66 2 1 4 8 9 17 16 9 76.687 0.74
Symphony51 1 1 1 1 5 3 7 11 10 11 76.657 1.26
Destiny28 1 3 1 2 2 4 5 10 96.648 1.70
LibraryWorld13 1 2 1 4 3 2 76.627 1.94
Library.Solution13 2 2 2 2 4 1 86.547 1.39
All Responses517 27 8 9 8 27 46 44 62 106 180 96.878 0.31

All Public Libraries: General ILS satisfaction (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (2015)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo110 1 7 23 79 98.639 0.86
Atriuum116 1 2 1 3 2 7 19 32 49 97.778 0.84
Koha -- ByWater Solutions89 1 1 1 4 7 19 24 32 97.648 0.85
Evergreen -- Equinox Software68 1 1 2 1 11 16 19 17 87.358 1.09
Library.Solution70 1 2 1 1 4 5 16 23 17 87.308 0.96
Polaris176 2 2 1 8 22 61 50 30 77.297 0.45
ResourceMate11 2 5 1 3 77.277 2.11
Spydus35 1 3 4 12 13 2 87.117 1.35
Destiny44 2 3 4 10 6 6 13 96.937 0.90
VERSO114 2 2 6 15 10 30 34 15 86.897 0.84
Symphony245 3 1 5 3 8 19 30 82 69 25 76.857 0.38
Evergreen -- Independent14 1 1 2 7 2 1 76.717 1.87
LibraryWorld17 1 1 1 4 3 4 3 66.717 1.70
Horizon60 3 4 6 11 23 12 1 76.457 0.77
Koha -- LibLime15 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 96.407 1.81
Axiell Aurora27 1 2 2 8 12 2 76.267 1.15
Millennium25 4 3 6 7 4 1 75.966 1.60
Sierra125 2 4 5 6 6 22 23 31 17 9 75.906 0.00
Absys.Net12 1 4 4 2 1 55.836 1.73
Amlib19 2 3 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 24.424 0.23
All Responses1578 13 14 32 35 55 120 193 407 376 333 76.987 0.00

All Public Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (2015)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Apollo109 1 2 7 33 66 98.489 0.77
Atriuum116 2 5 1 3 9 19 33 44 97.638 0.84
ResourceMate11 1 4 4 2 77.558 2.41
Polaris176 1 2 11 19 46 68 29 87.418 0.45
Koha -- ByWater Solutions89 1 2 2 2 10 22 33 17 87.388 0.74
Evergreen -- Equinox Software68 1 5 8 17 21 16 87.378 0.97
Library.Solution70 3 2 1 3 8 12 28 13 87.208 0.96
Spydus35 3 6 12 12 2 77.117 1.35
Symphony244 3 5 3 6 25 34 71 76 21 86.847 0.38
Axiell Aurora27 1 4 4 9 8 1 76.817 1.54
VERSO113 2 2 7 11 12 39 30 10 76.807 0.85
Destiny44 1 3 6 10 9 6 9 66.737 0.90
LibraryWorld17 2 1 1 1 6 4 2 76.537 1.70
Koha -- LibLime15 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 76.407 2.32
Evergreen -- Independent13 1 1 1 2 5 1 2 76.387 1.94
Horizon60 2 1 6 5 14 18 12 2 76.337 0.26
Millennium25 1 2 5 4 6 4 3 76.287 1.60
Absys.Net12 1 3 3 2 2 1 56.256 1.73
Sierra125 2 1 4 5 8 16 23 33 24 9 76.227 0.45
Amlib19 2 2 2 1 4 4 2 2 54.955 0.23
All Responses1574 7 10 37 34 52 121 203 383 445 282 86.997 0.13

Academic Libraries

top

Large Academic Libraries: General ILS satisfaction (2015)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2015)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma31 1 1 3 7 11 8 76.617 0.54
ALEPH 50027 1 1 1 2 4 9 9 76.527 0.96
Sierra42 1 2 4 7 10 13 5 75.956 0.77
Voyager24 2 2 2 2 12 1 3 65.466 1.63
Symphony19 1 1 3 6 3 3 1 1 55.325 1.15
Millennium20 1 1 3 3 4 5 1 1 1 64.855 1.12
All Responses187 1 2 8 9 14 27 46 47 30 3 75.936 0.22

Large Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2015)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma31 1 4 10 9 7 66.487 0.36
Sierra42 1 2 3 1 13 16 5 1 76.297 1.08
ALEPH 50027 1 2 1 1 4 8 8 2 65.636 1.15
Millennium20 1 4 3 1 5 5 1 65.256 0.89
Voyager24 1 3 5 3 8 2 2 65.176 1.63
Symphony19 1 3 2 2 2 3 4 2 74.895 1.15
All Responses187 3 11 13 16 16 53 49 23 3 65.786 0.15

Large Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2015)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Sierra42 1 5 11 19 6 87.558 1.23
ALEPH 50027 1 5 5 11 5 87.448 1.15
Symphony19 1 1 3 8 4 2 76.957 1.38
Voyager24 1 2 2 2 7 6 4 76.927 1.84
Alma31 1 2 5 15 7 1 76.907 0.72
Millennium20 1 2 1 1 6 8 1 86.857 1.79
All Responses187 4 6 7 24 61 65 20 87.187 0.29

Large Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2015)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma31 1 1 10 10 6 3 66.877 0.90
Sierra41 4 6 3 10 12 4 1 1 65.005 0.31
ALEPH 50026 1 3 3 3 4 6 3 1 1 1 54.084 0.98
Millennium20 1 5 4 4 1 3 1 1 23.804 0.67
Voyager24 1 4 4 2 5 3 3 2 43.544 1.22
Symphony18 4 3 2 3 4 2 13.334 0.71
All Responses184 5 14 21 18 21 28 35 25 11 6 64.685 0.37

Large Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2015)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Symphony19 1 2 1 7 4 4 77.117 1.15
ALEPH 50027 1 2 1 1 3 10 7 2 76.597 1.15
Alma31 1 1 7 2 10 9 1 76.587 0.36
Voyager24 1 1 1 4 3 4 9 1 86.507 1.22
Sierra42 1 5 3 5 6 9 8 3 2 65.296 1.08
Millennium19 2 2 4 3 2 1 2 2 1 23.533 0.92
All Responses185 2 4 13 11 11 23 22 47 39 13 76.017 0.15

Large Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2015)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma31 1 2 1 2 9 7 9 77.358 1.26
ALEPH 50026 1 1 4 3 4 5 8 97.088 0.98
Voyager24 2 3 4 4 5 6 97.047 1.22
Sierra42 3 1 4 2 5 9 4 9 4 1 54.955 1.23
Millennium20 3 2 2 3 1 3 3 2 1 04.455 1.12
Symphony19 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 4 1 84.374 0.23
All Responses186 11 6 7 10 15 23 19 35 31 29 75.887 0.51

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2015)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
WorldShare Management Services29 1 3 4 10 8 3 76.937 1.49
Alma32 2 1 4 6 10 8 1 76.537 1.24
Symphony34 1 2 1 3 2 7 6 10 2 86.217 1.37
Sierra56 1 1 3 6 6 9 19 7 4 76.167 0.80
Voyager29 1 2 3 4 6 8 5 75.906 1.30
Millennium59 2 5 4 3 5 11 20 6 3 75.766 0.91
ALEPH 50027 1 1 2 3 8 5 5 2 55.195 0.77
Horizon12 1 2 1 3 4 1 65.005 0.58
All Responses314 6 4 10 18 22 36 58 87 51 22 76.087 0.34

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2015)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma32 1 2 10 13 5 1 76.597 1.24
Sierra56 5 3 7 9 15 9 8 76.527 0.67
WorldShare Management Services29 1 1 1 4 9 6 6 1 66.246 1.30
Symphony34 1 1 2 4 3 3 10 8 2 76.187 1.20
Voyager29 4 1 6 6 9 3 75.836 0.93
Millennium59 2 3 8 3 3 11 17 9 3 75.816 1.04
ALEPH 50027 1 2 3 7 5 6 3 55.486 0.96
Horizon12 2 3 3 2 1 1 45.175 1.15
All Responses315 7 7 26 22 36 59 86 52 20 76.097 0.28

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2015)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Voyager28 1 6 6 11 4 87.368 1.70
Symphony34 1 1 2 1 12 9 8 77.358 1.20
Sierra56 2 4 1 2 15 21 11 87.348 1.07
WorldShare Management Services29 1 1 6 6 12 3 87.148 1.49
Millennium57 1 2 2 4 7 14 15 12 87.097 1.19
Alma32 1 2 2 7 6 8 6 86.977 1.59
ALEPH 50027 1 1 1 1 2 4 5 11 1 86.527 0.77
Horizon12 4 3 2 1 2 56.506 2.02
All Responses312 2 5 6 13 16 37 74 105 54 87.148 0.45

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2015)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma32 1 1 3 14 8 5 77.197 1.41
WorldShare Management Services29 1 1 4 6 7 9 1 86.597 1.30
Sierra56 1 3 7 5 7 10 14 5 4 75.666 0.53
Symphony34 1 3 5 4 2 6 4 4 3 2 54.625 1.03
Millennium58 2 3 9 6 8 7 10 6 6 1 64.575 1.05
Voyager29 5 4 2 4 6 6 1 1 54.004 0.37
ALEPH 50026 6 3 4 2 3 4 1 3 02.923 0.00
Horizon12 2 2 2 2 3 1 42.503 0.29
All Responses311 15 22 29 27 29 37 46 56 35 15 74.975 0.23

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2015)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
WorldShare Management Services29 1 1 1 6 5 10 5 87.108 1.67
Symphony34 1 3 2 1 11 9 7 76.947 1.54
Alma32 1 1 4 3 6 11 2 4 76.287 0.71
Voyager28 1 1 1 6 2 11 5 1 76.217 1.51
Horizon12 1 4 1 1 4 1 35.677 0.87
Millennium58 1 4 4 1 7 9 10 10 9 3 65.476 1.05
ALEPH 50027 1 3 2 1 7 8 5 65.005 1.15
Sierra57 2 7 2 5 7 6 8 10 7 3 75.005 0.79
All Responses310 5 14 15 17 24 37 43 73 53 29 75.907 0.34

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '200000') (CollectionSize < '1000001') (2015)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
WorldShare Management Services29 1 1 1 7 9 10 97.698 1.67
Alma30 1 2 2 3 7 8 7 87.138 0.37
Voyager29 2 1 1 4 6 7 3 5 76.147 1.11
ALEPH 50027 2 1 1 2 5 3 7 3 3 75.786 1.54
Symphony34 4 2 2 1 1 6 2 5 4 7 95.446 1.20
Sierra57 3 4 1 7 7 6 8 7 7 7 65.286 0.79
Millennium59 4 3 3 6 6 9 6 6 8 8 55.255 0.91
Horizon12 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 03.755 0.00
All Responses312 21 10 13 19 25 38 32 51 47 56 95.816 0.34

Smaller Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '0') (CollectionSize < '200001') (2015)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent10 1 3 6 98.509 2.53
Horizon14 1 1 2 6 4 87.798 2.14
Koha -- ByWater Solutions27 1 4 7 11 4 87.338 1.15
VERSO12 4 4 2 2 67.177 2.31
WorldShare Management Services34 1 1 2 3 10 14 3 87.098 1.20
Sierra48 1 1 1 1 2 1 10 18 12 1 76.467 1.01
Polaris11 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 86.458 2.71
Alma11 1 6 1 3 66.366 2.41
Symphony54 1 2 2 2 1 5 8 14 15 4 86.357 1.22
Millennium44 1 1 1 2 3 6 8 18 4 75.847 0.90
Voyager34 1 2 4 5 11 5 5 1 65.746 1.20
ALEPH 50028 3 2 3 2 8 4 4 2 65.716 0.94
All Responses415 4 8 13 12 22 30 76 104 101 45 76.527 0.29

Smaller Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '0') (CollectionSize < '200001') (2015)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Koha -- Independent10 1 6 3 88.208 2.53
Horizon14 1 2 3 5 3 87.508 2.14
Koha -- ByWater Solutions27 1 1 3 9 10 3 87.227 1.15
VERSO12 1 3 4 2 2 77.087 2.31
Alma11 1 1 4 5 87.007 2.41
WorldShare Management Services34 1 1 1 3 2 3 10 9 4 76.597 1.20
Sierra48 2 1 1 1 4 7 14 15 3 86.547 1.15
Symphony54 1 3 3 2 2 6 22 12 3 76.437 1.09
ALEPH 50028 1 1 2 4 9 3 6 2 66.076 0.94
Voyager34 1 3 7 12 5 3 3 66.066 1.03
Millennium44 1 5 2 4 11 15 5 1 76.026 0.75
Polaris11 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 85.647 2.71
All Responses415 3 6 12 21 17 37 64 107 105 43 76.527 0.29

Smaller Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '0') (CollectionSize < '200001') (2015)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Horizon14 1 1 2 4 6 97.938 2.14
Koha -- Independent10 1 2 2 5 97.609 2.53
Koha -- ByWater Solutions26 1 1 1 4 12 7 87.588 1.37
Sierra48 1 1 1 2 14 19 10 87.528 1.30
WorldShare Management Services34 1 3 1 10 10 9 77.448 1.37
Millennium44 1 1 6 14 14 8 77.398 1.06
Polaris11 1 1 1 5 3 87.368 2.71
VERSO12 1 1 5 3 2 77.337 2.31
Symphony54 1 2 3 1 2 18 20 7 87.078 1.22
Alma11 1 3 3 4 86.827 2.41
ALEPH 50028 1 1 8 3 2 8 5 56.647 0.94
Voyager34 1 2 3 4 6 7 6 5 76.417 1.37
All Responses414 1 4 8 7 13 26 34 100 131 90 87.218 0.34

Smaller Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '0') (CollectionSize < '200001') (2015)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Alma11 4 2 5 87.097 2.41
VERSO12 1 1 1 4 4 1 76.757 2.02
WorldShare Management Services33 1 3 5 5 5 11 3 86.617 1.04
Horizon13 1 2 4 3 2 1 66.386 0.83
Koha -- ByWater Solutions26 2 1 1 1 2 6 6 6 1 65.857 1.18
Koha -- Independent10 1 3 1 4 1 75.807 1.90
Sierra46 3 3 4 2 6 8 11 7 2 75.546 1.18
Symphony54 2 4 1 4 5 8 12 9 5 4 65.356 1.09
Millennium44 2 2 1 4 5 8 6 14 2 75.146 0.60
Polaris11 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 24.555 2.71
Voyager32 5 3 3 6 5 7 1 1 1 64.224 1.06
ALEPH 50028 3 2 2 6 4 3 3 1 4 34.004 0.57
All Responses404 19 21 22 29 34 53 65 76 64 21 75.396 0.30

Smaller Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '0') (CollectionSize < '200001') (2015)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
VERSO12 1 5 6 98.339 2.31
Horizon14 1 2 5 6 98.078 2.14
Koha -- ByWater Solutions27 1 1 8 6 11 97.858 1.54
WorldShare Management Services34 1 1 2 5 7 12 6 87.098 1.54
Symphony53 1 1 3 3 4 2 14 16 9 86.757 1.10
Alma11 1 2 2 3 2 1 76.367 2.41
Polaris11 1 1 3 2 3 1 56.097 2.71
ALEPH 50028 1 2 2 2 4 5 3 7 2 85.826 1.70
Millennium43 1 1 2 5 1 7 6 16 4 75.566 0.76
Sierra46 1 1 3 5 3 5 9 12 5 2 75.546 0.88
Voyager34 1 3 2 5 5 7 2 6 3 65.536 1.03
All Responses409 7 5 17 18 22 41 50 77 92 80 86.567 0.40

Smaller Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '0') (CollectionSize < '200001') (2015)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
Horizon14 1 4 2 7 98.009 2.14
Koha -- ByWater Solutions25 1 2 2 2 5 13 97.689 1.00
WorldShare Management Services33 1 3 1 3 4 9 12 97.368 1.39
VERSO11 3 3 1 1 3 56.826 2.41
Alma10 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 86.107 2.53
Symphony54 3 4 3 1 1 4 7 10 14 7 86.007 1.09
ALEPH 50027 1 1 2 4 3 4 3 6 3 85.896 1.73
Voyager34 3 1 2 7 6 4 5 6 55.826 0.86
Polaris10 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 35.706 2.85
Sierra47 1 1 3 3 9 5 7 10 3 5 75.496 0.88
Millennium44 6 2 1 6 3 8 9 4 5 75.326 0.90
All Responses401 25 9 19 13 31 38 46 61 68 91 96.157 0.25

All Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (2015)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS12 1 2 1 8 98.339 2.60
Koha -- Independent14 1 1 3 9 98.219 2.14
Koha -- ByWater Solutions31 1 4 9 13 4 87.358 1.26
VERSO12 4 4 2 2 67.177 2.31
WorldShare Management Services74 2 1 7 9 26 23 6 76.957 0.93
Alma75 4 2 7 19 22 20 1 76.567 0.81
Polaris11 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 86.458 2.71
Library.Solution11 1 1 1 1 4 3 76.277 2.11
Horizon30 2 3 1 5 5 2 7 5 86.236 0.37
Sierra147 1 2 3 6 12 14 30 50 24 5 76.207 0.49
Symphony108 2 3 5 3 7 13 18 24 26 7 86.137 0.87
ALEPH 50082 1 2 4 4 7 12 17 18 15 2 75.806 0.44
Voyager87 1 1 4 4 9 11 29 14 13 1 65.716 0.75
Millennium123 4 1 7 9 9 15 24 39 11 4 75.646 0.45
Alto10 2 1 1 1 3 2 75.407 2.21
All Responses928 11 14 31 39 58 94 182 240 185 74 76.267 0.20

All Academic Libraries: General ILS Functionality (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (2015)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS12 1 3 8 98.179 2.60
Koha -- Independent15 1 2 7 5 87.878 2.07
Koha -- ByWater Solutions31 1 1 4 11 11 3 77.197 1.08
VERSO12 1 3 4 2 2 77.087 2.31
Alma75 1 2 2 4 21 27 17 1 76.617 0.81
Library.Solution11 1 1 2 2 3 2 86.557 2.11
Sierra147 2 1 2 7 7 12 30 45 29 12 76.467 0.41
WorldShare Management Services74 2 2 3 5 6 15 19 16 6 76.357 0.81
Horizon30 1 2 4 5 4 3 7 4 86.206 0.73
Symphony108 3 7 7 8 7 12 37 22 5 76.087 0.77
Millennium123 2 5 17 8 8 27 37 14 5 75.806 0.36
Voyager87 1 1 7 9 16 26 16 8 3 65.746 0.64
ALEPH 50082 3 5 3 4 15 22 17 11 2 65.736 0.55
Polaris11 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 85.647 2.71
Alto10 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 65.106 2.21
All Responses929 3 16 30 60 55 90 179 244 182 70 76.247 0.16

All Academic Libraries: Effectiveness in managing print resources (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (2015)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS12 1 4 7 98.429 2.60
Library.Solution11 1 1 1 4 4 87.828 2.41
Koha -- ByWater Solutions30 1 1 1 6 14 7 87.578 1.28
Koha -- Independent15 1 1 2 4 7 97.478 2.07
Sierra147 1 3 5 2 10 40 59 27 87.458 0.66
Horizon30 5 4 5 7 9 97.378 1.28
Polaris11 1 1 1 5 3 87.368 2.71
VERSO12 1 1 5 3 2 77.337 2.31
WorldShare Management Services74 2 5 10 21 24 12 87.227 0.93
Millennium121 2 3 4 6 14 34 37 21 87.167 0.73
Symphony108 1 3 1 4 4 6 39 33 17 77.147 0.87
Alma75 1 4 4 15 24 20 7 76.937 1.04
ALEPH 50082 1 2 3 1 10 12 12 30 11 86.878 0.44
Voyager86 1 3 6 6 14 20 23 13 86.867 0.86
Alto10 1 1 1 2 3 2 86.808 2.21
All Responses925 1 6 13 17 32 49 96 238 304 169 87.198 0.26

All Academic Libraries: Effectiveness in managing electronic resources (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (2015)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS10 1 1 3 5 98.009 2.53
Alma75 1 2 1 17 26 20 8 77.057 0.92
VERSO12 1 1 1 4 4 1 76.757 2.02
WorldShare Management Services73 2 1 5 10 13 15 22 5 86.557 0.82
Koha -- Independent15 1 1 3 1 6 2 1 76.137 1.55
Library.Solution11 1 1 1 2 3 3 76.097 2.11
Koha -- ByWater Solutions29 2 1 1 1 1 2 6 8 6 1 75.837 1.11
Sierra144 3 1 10 17 10 23 31 29 13 7 65.446 0.33
Symphony107 3 11 9 10 10 18 18 14 8 6 54.795 0.77
Millennium122 5 5 15 14 17 16 19 21 9 1 74.655 0.27
Polaris11 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 24.555 2.71
Horizon29 2 4 3 3 3 2 5 4 2 1 64.284 0.19
Voyager85 1 14 11 7 15 14 16 4 2 1 63.954 0.65
ALEPH 50080 10 8 9 11 11 13 7 5 5 1 53.674 0.00
Alto10 3 1 1 1 2 2 03.004 1.58
All Responses911 39 57 72 74 84 119 148 160 112 46 75.136 0.13

All Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with ILS support (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (2015)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS12 1 1 10 98.679 2.60
VERSO12 1 5 6 98.339 2.31
Koha -- ByWater Solutions31 1 1 1 9 7 12 97.818 1.26
Library.Solution11 1 1 1 1 1 6 97.369 2.71
Koha -- Independent12 1 1 2 5 3 87.258 2.31
WorldShare Management Services73 2 1 4 1 12 15 25 13 87.128 1.05
Symphony107 1 1 5 3 5 7 3 33 29 20 76.887 0.77
Horizon30 1 6 1 1 4 9 8 86.778 0.55
Alto10 1 1 1 3 2 2 76.507 2.53
Alma75 3 1 5 12 10 25 13 6 76.437 0.46
Polaris11 1 1 3 2 3 1 56.097 2.71
Voyager86 2 5 3 7 15 12 17 20 5 86.026 0.65
ALEPH 50082 1 2 5 6 4 12 16 18 14 4 75.806 0.66
Sierra145 3 9 10 13 15 17 26 30 15 7 75.266 0.50
Millennium120 4 7 10 9 10 17 18 28 13 4 75.196 0.37
All Responses915 14 23 45 46 57 101 115 200 187 127 76.247 0.20

All Academic Libraries: Company Loyalty (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: Academic) (2015)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS12 1 11 98.759 2.60
Koha -- ByWater Solutions29 1 2 3 3 6 14 97.628 0.93
WorldShare Management Services73 1 3 4 3 5 14 19 24 97.348 1.05
Alma72 2 2 5 4 5 18 19 17 87.108 0.24
VERSO11 3 3 1 1 3 56.826 2.41
Alto10 1 1 1 3 1 3 76.407 2.21
Voyager87 5 2 2 1 2 14 16 15 13 17 96.267 0.54
ALEPH 50080 3 3 3 7 12 10 14 14 14 76.247 0.89
Library.Solution11 2 1 1 1 1 5 95.917 2.71
Polaris10 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 35.706 2.85
Horizon30 4 1 3 1 4 1 4 3 9 95.637 0.00
Symphony108 10 8 6 4 4 13 9 17 22 15 85.537 0.77
Sierra146 7 6 8 12 21 20 19 26 14 13 75.255 0.50
Millennium123 13 5 5 9 15 13 17 18 14 14 75.156 0.45
All Responses909 57 25 39 42 71 100 98 149 148 180 95.997 0.20

School Libraries

top

School Libraries: Overall ILS Satisfaction (2015)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: School) (2015)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS136 2 1 1 5 22 105 98.649 0.69
Atriuum12 1 2 5 4 88.008 2.60
Destiny80 1 1 4 6 17 31 20 87.638 1.01
Symphony21 1 1 1 2 4 4 8 97.388 1.31
Library.Solution13 1 1 2 3 2 4 97.237 2.22
All Responses308 2 1 2 1 7 8 15 41 79 152 97.968 0.00

School Libraries: General ILS Functionality (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: School) (2015)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS136 1 1 1 8 23 102 98.639 0.69
Destiny80 1 1 4 5 19 31 19 87.608 1.01
Symphony21 1 1 1 2 3 5 8 97.438 1.31
Atriuum12 1 2 2 5 2 87.428 2.31
Library.Solution13 1 2 2 1 3 4 97.158 2.50
All Responses309 1 1 4 7 10 15 40 86 145 97.938 0.00

School Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: School) (2015)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS135 3 2 7 15 108 98.659 0.69
Atriuum12 2 4 6 98.339 2.60
Destiny79 2 1 1 15 23 37 98.118 1.01
Library.Solution13 3 1 5 4 87.778 2.50
Symphony21 2 2 2 7 8 97.628 1.09
All Responses306 1 3 1 5 6 8 33 72 177 98.199 0.00

School Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: School) (2015)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS124 2 1 1 8 16 35 61 98.018 0.54
Atriuum10 1 3 3 1 2 66.807 2.85
Symphony20 2 1 2 2 3 7 3 86.708 1.12
Library.Solution13 1 1 3 5 2 1 76.237 1.94
Destiny75 2 1 2 5 3 12 9 19 10 12 76.237 0.92
All Responses287 6 2 9 7 10 20 26 56 64 87 97.058 0.00

School Libraries: Company Loyalty (2015)

top

Statistics related to the question: How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company? (Library Type: School) (2015)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics
CompanyResponses 0123456789ModeMeanMedianStd Dev
OPALS136 1 1 3 2 2 18 109 98.609 0.77
Atriuum12 1 3 3 5 97.928 2.60
Destiny76 3 1 1 3 3 4 11 18 32 97.428 0.92
Symphony21 1 1 1 1 2 4 2 9 97.058 1.09
Library.Solution13 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 96.547 0.83
All Responses304 13 2 3 2 7 11 12 30 53 171 97.709 0.00


An interactive version of the statistical reports, is available which includes the ability to view the responses for each of the ILS products, along with the redacted comments.


ILS Turnover Reports

Another set of reports provide information on the ILS products that were selected during 2015 by libraries registered in libraries.org. [Note: these numbers are not comprehensive.]

The ILS Turn-over report counts and lists the automation systems recorded as selected or installed in 2015 with a breakdown of the previous systems displaced.

The Reverse ILS Turn-over report. counts and lists the automation systems recorded as replaced in 2015 with a breakdown of the new systems that were selected


Details about The Survey

top

The survey instrument included five numerical ratings, three yes/no responses, and two short response fields, and a text field for general comments. The numeric rating fields allow responses from 0 through 9. Each scale was labeled to indicate the meaning of the numeric selection.

Four of the numeric questions probe at the level of satisfaction with and loyalty to the company or organization that provides its current automation system:

  • How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System?
  • How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library?
  • How satisfied is the library overall with the company from which you purchased your current ILS?
  • Has the customer support for this ILS gotten better or gotten worse in the last year?
  • How satisfied is this library with this company’s customer support services?
  • How likely is it that this library will purchase its next ILS from this company?

A yes/no question asks whether the library is considering migrating to a new ILS and a fill-in text field provides the opportunity to provide specific systems under consideration. Another yes/no question asks whether the automation system currently in use was installed on schedule.

view automation survey

Given the recent interest in new search interfaces, a yes/no question asks “Is the library currently considering a search interface for its collection that is separate from the ILS?” and a fill-in form to indicate products under consideration.

The survey includes two questions that aim to gauge interest in open source ILS, a numerical rating that asks “How likely is it that this library would consider implementing and open source ILS?” and a fill-in text field for indicating products under consideration.

The survey concludes with a text box inviting comments.

View the survey. (This version of the survey does not accept or record response data.)

In order to correlate the responses with particular automation systems and companies, the survey links to entries in the libraries.org directory of libraries. Each entry in libraries.org indicates the automation system currently in use as well as data on the type of library, location, collection size, and other factors that might be of potential interest. In order to fill out the survey, the responder had first to find their library in libraries.org and then press a button that launched the response form. Some potential respondents indicated that found this process complex.

The link between the libraries.org entry and the survey automatically populated fields for the library name and current automation system and provided access to other data elements about the library as needed. The report on survey response demographics, for example, relies on data from lib-web-cats.

A number of methods were used to solicit responses to the survey. E-mail messages were sent to library-oriented mailing lists such as WEB4LIB, PUBLIB, and NGC4LIB. Invitational messages were also sent to many lists for specific automation systems and companies. Where contact information was available in lib-web-cats, and automated script produced e-mail messages with a direct link to the survey response form for that library.

The survey attempted to limit responses to one per library. This restriction was imposed to attempt to sway the respondents to reflect the broad perceptions of their institution rather than their personal opinions.

The survey instrument was created using the same infrastructure as the Library Technology Guides web site—a custom interface written in perl using MySQL to store the data, with ODBC as the connection layer. Access to the raw responses is controlled through a user name and password available only to the author. Scripts were written to provide public access to the survey in a way that does not expose individual responses.

In order to provide access to the comments without violating the stated agreement not to attribute individual responses to any given institution or individual, an addition field was created for “edited comments.” This field was manually populated with text selected from the “comments” text provided by the respondent. Any information that might identify the individual or library was edited out, with an ellipse indicating the removed text. Comments that only explained a response or described the circumstances of the library were not transferred to the Edited Comments field.

Statistics

top

To analyze the results, a few scripts were written to summarize, analyze, and present the responses.

In order to avoid making generalizations based on inadequate sample sizes, the processing scripts included a threshold variable that would only present results when the number of responses exceeded the specified value. The threshold was set to a value of 20.

For each of the survey questions that involve a numeric rating, a set of subroutines was created to calculate and display simple statistics.

  • Responses indicates the number of survey responses that made a selection for this question.
  • A Response Distribution array lists the number of responses for each possible value from 0-9.
  • The Mode indicates the numeric response that received the most selections.
  • The Mean is the average response, calculated by adding together all the responses and dividing by the Responses value, rounding to two significant decimal places.
  • The Median is the middle response, calculated by placing each of the responses in a sorted array and selecting the middle value.
  • The Standard Deviation was calculated by subtracting each response value from the mean, squaring the difference, summing the squares and dividing by the number of responses to determine the variance. The standard deviation is the square root of the variance.

The "survey-report-by-category.pl" script processes each of the numerical ratings, displaying each of the statistical components listed above for each product that received responses above the threshold value. This report provides a convenient way to compare the performance of each ILS product for the selected question. The report sorts the statistics for each product in descending order of the mean. The report categories available correspond to the survey questions with numerical scale responses.

The “survey-product-report.pl” script provides the results for each of the ILS products mentioned in the responses. This report also provides the statistical components for each of the numeric question. It also provides the percentage of yes responses to the two yes/no questions:

  • Is this library currently considering migrating to a new ILS?
  • Is this library currently considering acquiring a search interface for its collection that is separate from the ILS? The report then lists the “EditedComments” text.

[The text of this section mostly replicates what appeared in the 2007 version of this article. For for both editions of the survey I followed the same methodology for collection and and statistical analysis.]


Caveat

As noted with previous editions of the survey, libraries evaluating products should not read too much into the survey results. Individuals responding to the survey provide their subjective impressions to fairly general questions. Although the survey instructions encourage responders to consider the broader institutional perceptions, it’s usually the case that multiple opinions prevail within any given library. Although the survey attempts to provide useful information about the experiences of libraries with their current integrated library systems and the organizations that provide support, it should not be used as a definitive assessment tool.
https://www.librarytechnology.org/perceptions/2015/
www.librarytechnology.org
CC-MAIN-2023-23
407695
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:X4PFXRFEHDT6J3SEZNCXFYQM3TJ3UMZW
<urn:uuid:fc8377c7-5725-4c5f-933c-555f751ff003>
2023-06-09T16:51:46Z
64.150.187.62
text/html
sha1:7ILCQRZ3EOHF6LYXU3EM4RSKTVAEPAHX
<urn:uuid:fac9b614-97f2-46dd-b051-58c883226ec1>
https://www.librarytechnology.org/perceptions/2015/
response
<urn:uuid:2fdb3c1f-8d24-4b4d-a078-ae6f4b01e203>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2023-23
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May/June 2023
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-128
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/