by Marshall Breeding, March 17, 2018.

This eleventh edition of the International Survey of Library Automation presents the latest data on how libraries perceive the effectiveness of the strategic technology systems upon which they depend for their daily operations and to fulfill the expectations of their patrons. This report presents and interprets survey responses gathered from November 2017 through February 2018. The survey focuses primarily on integrated library systems and library services platforms as the applications used to acquire, describe, manage, and provide access to their collections. It also assesses the quality of support given from the respective vendor and probes interest in migrating to new solutions and attitudes toward open source alternatives.

This report is an original publication

of Library Technology Guides.

3,992 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. Libraries of different sizes and types bring different expectations to their systems, making it essential to segment survey results to make meaningful comparisons and extract trends. The functional requirements of public, academic, school, and other types of libraries overlap to a certain extent, but in other areas each has 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. Large libraries of all types have complex requirements and evaluate their systems on a much harsher scale than smaller organizations. Conventional integrated library systems dominate public libraries, with top scores going to proprietary products in the largest tier and to those based on commercially supported open source software in the mid-size category. Small and very small public libraries also favored proprietary ILS products. In the academic library sector, survey results reveal interesting patterns regarding the newer generation of library services platforms. These products received strong marks in most categories but are perceived as less capable for managing print resources than legacy ILS products. Small libraries give superlative scores to products able to meet their basic requirements without complex features they don't need.

I 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

The 2017 Library Automation Perceptions Report provides evaluative ratings submitted by individuals representing 3992 libraries from 87 countries describing experiences with 127 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 Apollo received superlative scores in the small and very small library categories, toping the charts in general satisfaction, overall ILS functionality, print and electronic functionality, customer support, and company loyalty. ByWater Solutions, providing services for Koha, earned highest scores from mid-sized public libraries across all categories except company loyalty. Alma from Ex Libris led as the top performer among large and mid-sized academic libraries for general ILS satisfaction, overall functionality, end effectiveness in managing electronic resources. For large and mid-sized academic libraries, Ex Libris received top company loyalty scores for its three products: Alma, Aleph, and Voyager. Polaris received top rankings among large public libraries for general satisfaction, overall functionality, print resource management, electronic resource management, and company loyalty. Symphony from SirsiDynix received top scores among large public libraries and large academic libraries for customer support. OPALS received highest scores in all categories among school and small academic libraries.

Previous editions: 2016, 2015, 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 count More Less 386 0 10,000 1269 10,001 50,000 504 50,001 100,000 603 100,001 250,000 414 250,001 500,000 272 500,001 1,000,000 412 1,000,001 10,000,000 21 10,000,001 111 No collection size data 3992 Total of Categories

This year, the survey attracted 3,992 responses from libraries in 88 different countries. The countries most strongly represented include the United States (2,985 responses), followed by Canada (246), Australia (179), United Kingdom (124), Spain (55), Sweden (28), and New Zealand (35). 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 (55), Argentina (12), Chile (7), Colombia (4), Mexico (1), Venezuela (3), and Uruguay (1). A total of 1,006 of the 3,992 total responses (25.2 percent) came from libraries outside the United States.

The survey received 3,992 responses: ( 2016=4,042 2015=3,453; 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 30,596 responses. The survey was open between November 2, 2017 and February 2, 2018.

There were 111 of the 3.992 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 1,641 responses, followed by academic libraries with 1,201. This year 526 responses came from school libraries.

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

Full demographic summary.

General Information about the Survey

top

The survey attracted responses from libraries using 128 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

Migration Patterns and Trends

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.

Current ILS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 ALEPH 500 9.1% 13.6% 11.9% 18.9% 25.7% 34.6% 40.4% 45.7% 55.3% 64.6% 67.2% Alma -- -- -- -- -- 25.0% 16.7% 4.3% 2.3% 2.5% 1.2% Apollo 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% 0.9% 0.0% Horizon 49.3% 61.5% 45.2% 57.3% 54.7% 49.7% 45.4% 42.2% 34.9% 28.6% 31.6% Library.Solution 12.1% 3.3% 8.7% 14.3% 14.4% 13.6% 12.9% 10.8% 18.3% 12.4% 25.2% Millennium 6.4% 8.6% 11.7% 18.7% 31.2% 42.4% 45.3% 56.9% 65.5% 75.0% 71.3% Polaris 1.6% 9.4% 6.5% 5.8% 1.9% 1.2% 0.7% 5.3% 7.9% 7.3% 7.9% Sierra -- -- -- -- -- 3.1% 6.4% 10.8% 12.9% 13.4% 19.2% Symphony 14.9% 23.1% 15.8% 20.2% 22.5% 20.4% 20.4% 20.8% 18.0% 18.6% 19.8% Voyager 21.6% 21.8% 19.5% 32.3% 38.3% 49.4% 50.9% 67.5% 69.2% 66.7% 69.7% WorldShare Management Services -- -- -- -- 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 4.1% 3.2% 6.0% 7.0%

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.

View Migration Charts

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 (201), WorldShare Management Services (86), Sierra (74), Koha (77), Symphony (44), and FOLIO (59). When asked about open source interest regardless of active plans to change systems, 250 mentioned Koha, 135 mentioned FOLIO, 107 mentioned Evergreen, and 7 mentioned TIND (or Invenio).

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 Polaris Sierra Symphony FOLIO Koha Evergreen Kuali TIND ALEPH 500 116 78 67.2 62 44 11 0 8 4 9 5 0 0 1 Horizon 133 42 31.6 15 5 4 9 2 4 2 2 4 0 0 Library.Solution 115 29 25.2 4 1 2 3 4 4 0 5 2 0 0 Millennium 94 67 71.3 46 23 15 5 33 5 7 8 1 0 2 Sierra 422 81 19.2 49 32 15 2 7 6 10 8 6 0 1 Polaris 267 21 7.9 2 1 2 2 1 1 0 2 5 0 0 Symphony 536 106 19.8 59 30 18 9 6 7 7 9 5 0 0 Voyager 119 83 69.7 68 43 8 0 8 1 16 8 1 0 2 Amlib 7 7 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 Any Product 201 86 36 74 44 59 77 27 0 6

View Interest Table

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 1,006 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.

product Total responses United States International All Products 3,992 2,986 1,006 Symphony 536 371 165 Horizon 133 93 40 Sierra 422 345 93 Millennium 94 66 28 Polaris 297 235 32 Aleph 118 57 61 Voyager 119 96 23 Alma 260 154 106 Axiell Aurora 7 0 7 WorldShare Management Services 142 124 18 Absys.Net 9 0 9

Selected Companies and Products

top

Innovative Interfaces, Inc.

Innovative Interfaces develops and supports a variety of technology products for libraries, including Sierra, Polaris, and Virtua. Its Millennium ILS, the predecessor to Sierra continues to be widely used. The company is active in almost all global regions. Libraries of all types and sizes have implemented the products of Innovative (view company profile). The company was well represented in this year’s survey results with 329 from libraries using Sierra, 297 using Polaris, 94 using Millennium, and 14 using Virtua, or 734 in total. Innovative saw a change of ownership in Mar 2012 and subsequently acquired Polaris (Mar 2014) and VTLS (Jun 2014).

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 422 libraries, including 208 academic libraries, 149 publics, 23 consortia and 1 special library. Loyalty scores were weak overall (5.36), with large academics (4.80) expressing the least commitment to acquiring their next system from this company. When considering ratings given over time, ILS Support declined significantly from 7.96 in 2012 to 5.17 in 2015, but has increased slightly since, with 5.30 this year. General satisfaction increased slightly over last year up to 6.27 from 6.23. 81 out of the 422 responses (19.9%) indicated interest in moving from Sierra to a new system.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

Sierra all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg SatisfactionLevelILS 419 6.27 75 6.45 75 6.17 56 5.88 73 6.62 59 6.25 13 5.77 4 23 5.78 ILSFunctionality 416 6.39 74 6.61 75 6.24 55 5.73 73 6.70 59 6.47 13 5.62 4 23 6.17 PrintFunctionality 419 7.30 75 7.48 75 7.32 56 7.43 73 7.27 59 7.17 13 6.00 4 23 7.17 ElectronicFunctionality 407 5.20 72 5.46 74 5.05 55 4.73 72 5.33 56 5.16 13 4.92 4 23 4.52 SatisfactionCustomerSupport 413 5.30 72 5.93 75 5.29 57 4.95 71 5.79 58 4.76 13 4.23 4 23 4.48 CompanyLoyalty 411 5.36 73 5.56 75 5.19 56 4.80 70 6.04 58 5.17 12 5.17 4 23 4.91

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 455 responded, consistent with the gradual migration from this legacy product. 94 libraries using Millennium responded this year (2016=144; 2015=174; 2014=210; 2013=248; 2012=389; 2011=454). Over the editions of the survey, Millennium has shifted from Innovative's flagship ILS to a legacy product. Out of the 94 libraries which responded this year, 67 indicated interest in moving to a new system. 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 71.3% this year. Migration options mentioned included Sierra (33), followed by Alma (23), WorldShare Management Services (15), Koha (8), Symphony (5), and FOLIO (7). While Innovative has seen generally positive results in the majority of Millennium libraries migrating to Sierra, many are also considering competing products.

The number of public libraries using Millennium has declined such the responses recieved in this category to were below the threshold be included in the statistical tables.

Response data from previous years for Millennium shows steady to rising ratings from 2007 through 2010, with declining satisfaction scores through last year. This year saw an increase in satisfaction scores across all categories, to about the levels of 2015. (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, 2016: 5.14, 2017: 5.47).

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

Millennium all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg SatisfactionLevelILS 92 5.47 21 5.33 26 5.73 10 4.20 8 5.50 4 2 1 4 ILSFunctionality 93 5.56 21 5.67 26 5.62 10 4.30 8 5.88 4 2 1 4 PrintFunctionality 93 6.89 21 6.95 26 7.08 10 6.90 8 5.63 4 2 1 4 ElectronicFunctionality 91 4.34 20 4.10 26 4.38 10 3.20 8 5.38 4 2 1 4 SatisfactionCustomerSupport 92 4.93 21 4.67 26 5.04 10 4.30 8 5.50 4 2 1 4 CompanyLoyalty 92 4.85 21 4.24 26 4.77 10 4.10 8 6.63 4 2 0 4

Polaris

top

Polaris (full product report and narrative comments) has been implemented primarily by public libraries) within the United States and Canada, with 263 libraries responding to this year’s survey. Polaris continues to be well appreciated by large public libraries, earning top rankings in for general satisfaction (7.51), overall functionality (7.31), print resource management (7.74). Although Polaris led in scores for electronic resource management (6.2) relative to competing products, the overall level of scores in this category of electronic resource management was substantially lower than others.

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 2015, ratings for Polaris have declined in all categories. 2016 ratings in each category saw noticable improvement, with a slight drop again this year.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

Polaris all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg SatisfactionLevelILS 263 7.25 10 7.80 1 0 151 7.20 51 7.45 19 7.53 3 21 7.05 ILSFunctionality 261 7.34 10 7.60 1 0 149 7.40 51 7.43 19 7.11 3 21 7.38 PrintFunctionality 263 7.71 10 7.90 1 0 151 7.69 51 7.84 19 7.79 3 21 8.10 ElectronicFunctionality 257 6.44 10 6.40 1 0 148 6.55 51 6.59 19 6.05 2 21 6.24 SatisfactionCustomerSupport 248 6.90 10 6.90 1 0 142 6.89 49 6.98 18 6.83 1 21 6.86 CompanyLoyalty 255 6.60 10 6.80 1 0 147 6.63 49 6.86 18 7.39 3 21 6.19

Virtua

top

This year 14 libraries using Virtua (full product report and narrative comments) responded to the survey. Half (7 out of 14) of these libraries stated interest in migrating to a new system. Though the number of responses was too low for confident results, the ratings for general satisfaction, and company satisfaction were up again this year, increasing to the levels seen in 2013 when scores in all categories was at its peak. This year company loyalty decreased (5.29) from the last year's rating (6.0).

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

Virtua all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg SatisfactionLevelILS 14 7.00 3 2 7 7.00 0 0 0 0 0 ILSFunctionality 14 7.00 3 2 7 7.14 0 0 0 0 0 PrintFunctionality 13 7.77 3 2 6 8.17 0 0 0 0 0 ElectronicFunctionality 14 4.71 3 2 7 4.00 0 0 0 0 0 SatisfactionCustomerSupport 14 6.93 3 2 7 7.00 0 0 0 0 0 CompanyLoyalty 14 5.29 3 2 7 5.14 0 0 0 0 0

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 253 libraries using Alma, 118 using Aleph, and 119 using Voyager responded to the survey, for a total of 490 overall. 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.

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 academic libraries with collections over 1 million volumes for for general ILS satisfaction (7.0), overall ILS functionality (6.83), effectiveness of managing electronic resources (6.97), and company loyalty (7.15). These libraries rated Alma's print functionality (7.2) below that of Sierra (7.43), Symphony (7.40), and Aleph (7.38, though higher than that of Voyager (6.92). Alma's satisfaction levels for managing print resources have risen each year since 2014. This lower rating for print functionality did not deter libraries from giving Alma the higest rating for overall functionality, reflecing the higher priority in managing electronic resources. Mid-sized academics rated Alma highest in the category of General Satisfaction (6.56), Overall ILS functionality (6.89) and effectiveness in managing electronic resources (6.71).

Alma was not rated as positively among small academic libraries. Its ragings were in the lower third of the pack, except in the category relating to the management of electronic resources, its scores were in the upper third (6.30).

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

Alma all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg SatisfactionLevelILS 253 6.58 54 6.17 94 6.56 66 7.00 0 0 0 0 7 6.57 ILSFunctionality 252 6.80 54 6.57 93 6.86 66 6.83 0 0 0 0 7 6.57 PrintFunctionality 253 6.96 54 6.89 94 6.87 66 7.20 0 0 0 0 7 6.86 ElectronicFunctionality 253 6.67 54 6.30 94 6.72 66 6.97 0 0 0 0 7 7.00 SatisfactionCustomerSupport 251 6.04 55 6.04 93 6.09 65 6.26 0 0 0 0 7 5.29 CompanyLoyalty 249 6.72 52 6.31 94 6.78 65 7.15 0 0 0 0 7 7.00

Voyager

top

Voyager, (full product report and narrative comments), acquired by Ex Libris from Elsevier in Nov 2006, 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 (6.95) and functionality for electronic resources received the lowest (3.81). Large academics gave Voyager low ratings in most categories except for company loyalty (6.64). Mid-sized academics showed even stronger loyalty (6.97); small academics indicated a bit weaker company loyalty (6.06). The strong loyalty scores for libraries using Voyager can be seen as a positive indicator for eventual migration to Alma. Most libraries currently using Voyager indicate interest in migrating to a new system (68.9%). Of those considering migrating, more mentioned Alma among the candidate replacements (43). Others mentioned included FOLIO (16), WorldShare Management Services (8), Sierra (8), and Koha (8).

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

Voyager all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg SatisfactionLevelILS 119 5.66 35 5.49 32 5.66 25 5.40 0 0 0 0 2 ILSFunctionality 118 5.61 34 5.71 32 5.56 25 5.16 0 0 0 0 2 PrintFunctionality 116 6.95 34 6.38 30 7.33 25 6.92 0 0 0 0 2 ElectronicFunctionality 117 3.81 34 3.82 32 3.91 24 3.63 0 0 0 0 2 SatisfactionCustomerSupport 118 6.23 34 5.97 32 6.50 25 6.12 0 0 0 0 2 CompanyLoyalty 118 6.57 35 6.06 32 6.97 25 6.64 0 0 0 0 2

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.

Ratings in all categories were similar to those given last year, though company loyalty showing an increase. Libraries using Aleph have shown a growing loyalty to Ex Libris from 2007 (4.65) through this year (6.65).

66.1 percent of libraries using Aleph indicate interest in moving to a new system. Large academic libraries using Aleph gave positive ratings for company loyalty (7.13). Migration candidates mentioned included Alma (4), WorldShare Management Services (14), FOLIO (9), Sierra (8) and Koha (5). All these statistics can be seen as relatively good news to Ex Libris regarding whether Aleph libraries will stay within the fold and eventually move to Alma.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

ALEPH 500 all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg SatisfactionLevelILS 118 5.79 31 5.81 24 5.38 25 6.08 7 5.57 1 0 0 6 6.33 ILSFunctionality 118 5.47 31 5.77 24 5.46 25 5.32 7 5.00 1 0 0 6 4.83 PrintFunctionality 116 6.97 31 6.87 24 7.21 24 7.38 6 6.33 1 0 0 6 7.83 ElectronicFunctionality 115 3.59 31 3.58 23 3.30 25 3.40 6 5.17 1 0 0 6 3.67 SatisfactionCustomerSupport 113 6.15 31 6.39 22 5.91 25 6.20 6 5.83 1 0 0 6 7.50 CompanyLoyalty 113 6.65 30 6.47 23 6.35 24 7.13 6 6.67 1 0 0 6 7.83

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 140 libraries using WorldShare Management Services responded to the survey as well as 14 using Amlib.

WorldShare Management Services

top

A total of 140 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 5 special libraries, 4 public libraries, 2 schools, and 2 consortia.

WorldShare Management Services did not receive enough responses to appear in the large academic library tables. Among mid-sized academic libraries, WMS saw its most favorable ratings for its management of electronic resources (6.49), second only to Alma (6.71).

From 2012 through 2014 ratings for WorldShare Management Services gradually increased, but have since declined. Company loyalty has declined from 7.44 in 2015 to 6.49 this year.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

WorldShare Management Services all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg SatisfactionLevelILS 140 6.49 59 6.85 40 6.05 8 6.38 4 0 0 2 2 ILSFunctionality 140 6.50 59 6.95 40 6.00 8 5.63 4 0 0 2 2 PrintFunctionality 138 7.06 58 7.26 39 6.64 8 6.25 4 0 0 2 2 ElectronicFunctionality 137 6.53 57 6.65 40 6.45 8 6.75 4 0 0 2 2 SatisfactionCustomerSupport 140 6.74 59 7.02 40 6.45 8 6.75 4 0 0 2 2 CompanyLoyalty 136 6.49 57 6.88 40 5.75 8 6.88 4 0 0 2 2

Amlib

top

This year’s survey included 7 responses from libraries using Amlib (full product report and narrative comments), an integrated library system also supported by OCLC.

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 531 libraries using Symphony responded to the survey (2016: 436, 2015: 436, 2014: 354, 2013: 315, 2012: 380, 2011: 326, 2010: 271, 2009: 304, 2008: 233, 2007: 284). Another 131 libraries using Horizon and 25 using EOS.Web completed responses, for a total of 687 SirsiDynix libraries represented in the survey

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. The ownership of SirsiDynix changed again in December 2014 with its acquisition by ICV Partners. This first year since that transition saw continued movement upward in perceptions scores for Symphony, a slight dip in scores for Horizon, and a sharp rise in perceptions ratings for EOS.Web.

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 academics libraries rated Symphony highest in satisfaction for customer support (6.98), as did large public libraries (7.67). Symphony received second-highest scores among large public libraries for general satisfaction (7.00), overall ILS functionality (6.72), and electronic resource management (5.76).

19.8 percent of libraries (106 out of 536 responses) indicated consideration of migrating from Symphony. Of those registering interest in changing, 59 were academic libraries. Candidate systems mentioned included Alma (30), WorldShare Management Services (18), Koha (9), Polaris (9), FOLIO (7), Sierra (6), and Evergreen (5). 7 mentioned remaining with Symphony among the considerations.

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

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

Symphony all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg SatisfactionLevelILS 531 6.69 74 6.08 48 6.40 16 6.31 194 6.78 77 7.03 21 7.14 16 7.63 32 7.16 ILSFunctionality 531 6.64 74 6.16 48 6.35 16 6.00 194 6.81 77 6.77 21 6.81 16 7.56 32 7.09 PrintFunctionality 523 7.14 74 7.05 48 7.17 15 7.40 189 6.95 77 7.22 21 7.38 16 7.94 32 7.88 ElectronicFunctionality 525 5.61 73 4.81 48 4.81 16 4.63 191 5.84 76 5.96 21 6.10 16 7.00 32 6.63 SatisfactionCustomerSupport 518 7.11 73 6.67 47 7.13 13 6.69 186 6.97 77 7.44 21 8.00 16 7.88 32 7.94 CompanyLoyalty 516 6.34 73 5.52 47 6.23 15 4.93 188 6.54 73 6.58 21 7.71 14 7.64 32 7.06

Horizon

top

Libraries using Horizon (full product report and narrative comments), continue to show less interest in changing systems, apparently accepting the messaging from SirsiDynix that it will continue to be supported in the long term. 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). This year 42 out of 133 (31.6%) responses indicated interest in change, and dramaticly less than in 2008 when 61.5 percent of libraries using Horizon indicated they were shopping for a new system. Of those libraries indicating interest in mmoving away from Horizon, candidate systems included Polaris (9), Sierra (4), Alma (5), WorldShare Management Services (4), Symphony (4), Evergreen (4), Koha (2), and FOLIO (2).

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

Horizon all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg SatisfactionLevelILS 131 6.54 15 5.93 11 6.73 2 33 6.85 39 6.85 8 6.63 2 7 6.57 ILSFunctionality 131 6.31 15 5.73 11 6.18 2 33 6.52 39 6.56 8 6.38 2 7 7.00 PrintFunctionality 131 7.28 15 6.87 11 8.00 2 33 7.15 39 7.44 8 7.13 2 7 7.71 ElectronicFunctionality 129 4.86 14 3.86 11 3.73 2 32 5.78 39 4.90 8 4.63 2 7 6.43 SatisfactionCustomerSupport 129 7.01 15 7.47 11 6.73 2 31 6.74 39 7.10 8 7.00 2 7 7.57 CompanyLoyalty 129 6.29 15 6.27 11 5.45 2 33 6.21 38 6.37 8 7.25 1 7 7.43

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. The responses from libraries using EOS.Web have been fairly erratic across the annual editions of the survey. This year, results in all categories were sharply improved over those seen last year, which were down from the previous year. Omitting 2016 results, responses from 2014 through this year can be seen as generally improving.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

EOS.Web all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg SatisfactionLevelILS 24 7.38 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ILSFunctionality 25 7.24 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PrintFunctionality 25 7.80 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ElectronicFunctionality 25 6.28 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SatisfactionCustomerSupport 25 8.28 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CompanyLoyalty 24 7.46 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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 115 responses from libraries using Library.Solution and 11 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, from whom it received somewhat higher ratings than those given by small public libraries. Ratings in all categories have declined for Library.Solution in the last two years. Libraries using Library.Solution give higher ratings for support (7.54) than for the other categories. 29 out of the 115 respnoses (25.2%) indicated interest in migrating to a new product.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

Library.Solution all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg SatisfactionLevelILS 115 6.93 9 7.44 3 0 74 6.74 11 7.27 0 12 7.42 0 ILSFunctionality 115 6.92 9 7.56 3 0 74 6.84 11 7.09 0 12 7.08 0 PrintFunctionality 114 7.18 9 7.78 2 0 74 6.95 11 7.73 0 12 7.58 0 ElectronicFunctionality 112 5.89 9 6.11 3 0 72 5.85 11 7.00 0 11 5.55 0 SatisfactionCustomerSupport 115 7.54 9 8.00 3 0 74 7.41 11 7.55 0 12 7.92 0 CompanyLoyalty 114 6.67 9 7.00 3 0 73 6.33 11 7.45 0 12 7.50 0

Carl.X

top

Carl.x (full product report and narrative comments), is used primarily by large municipal libraries and consortia. With only 11 responses this year, Carl.X does not appear in the statistical tables. Ratings given for Carl.X were substantially higher in 2016 commpared to those given in 2015, but declined somewhat this year. Libraries using Carl.X gave The Library Corporation thier highest scores for print functionality and lowest for customer support.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

Carl.X all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg SatisfactionLevelILS 11 6.73 0 0 0 2 4 4 0 1 ILSFunctionality 11 6.91 0 0 0 2 4 4 0 1 PrintFunctionality 11 7.36 0 0 0 2 4 4 0 1 ElectronicFunctionality 10 6.30 0 0 0 2 4 3 0 1 SatisfactionCustomerSupport 10 6.10 0 0 0 1 4 4 0 1 CompanyLoyalty 10 6.60 0 0 0 1 4 4 0 1

Biblionix

top

Biblionix (view company profile) is a small family-owned and managed business based in Austin, TX that focuses entirely on small and mid-sized public libraries and has developed Apollo an entirely web-based ILS deployed through a multi-tenant platform. This year 131 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. Apollo was the top performer among small public librariesin all categories: general satisfaction (8.81), overall functionality (8.27), print resource management (8.18), electronic resource management (8.00), customer support (8.58), and company loyalty (8.50). It led the rankings among very small public libraries for every category: general satisfaction (8.55), overall ILS functionality (8.35), print resource management (8.15), electronic resource management (7.91), customer support (8.64), and company loyalty (8.51). This product has seen consistently positive rankings for all the years it has appeared in the survey. Within the realm of small and very small public libraries, Apollo has exceptionally happy customers.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

Apollo all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg SatisfactionLevelILS 131 8.51 0 0 0 130 8.51 0 0 0 0 ILSFunctionality 130 8.27 0 0 0 129 8.27 0 0 0 0 PrintFunctionality 131 8.19 0 0 0 130 8.18 0 0 0 0 ElectronicFunctionality 130 7.99 0 0 0 129 8.00 0 0 0 0 SatisfactionCustomerSupport 129 8.57 0 0 0 128 8.58 0 0 0 0 CompanyLoyalty 130 8.50 0 0 0 129 8.50 0 0 0 0

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 115 libraries using Atriuum (full product report and narrative comments), from Book Systems responded to the survey; 95 were from small public libraries, 11 from schools, and one from an academic library. The company earned its strongest ratings in customer support (8.25); Since 2007 ratings across categories have been improving steadily. This year saw a slight improvement in all categories except for company loyalty.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

Atriuum all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg SatisfactionLevelILS 115 7.97 1 0 0 95 7.91 0 0 11 8.45 0 ILSFunctionality 115 7.90 1 0 0 95 7.85 0 0 11 8.27 0 PrintFunctionality 114 7.98 1 0 0 94 7.91 0 0 11 8.55 0 ElectronicFunctionality 106 6.87 1 0 0 88 6.85 0 0 10 6.40 0 SatisfactionCustomerSupport 114 8.25 1 0 0 95 8.18 0 0 10 8.60 0 CompanyLoyalty 112 7.73 0 0 0 93 7.66 0 0 11 8.18 0

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 34 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 but one from outside the United States. Of the 34 libraries responding, only 2 (5.9%)indicated interest in migrating to a new system. Among mid-sized public libraris, Spydus was given top ratings for company loyalty. This group also gave Spydus strong ratings for overall ILS satisfaction (7.27), ILS functionality (7.14), and print functionality (7.73). Since 2011 ratings for Spydus have been mostly consistent and generally positive in all categories. This year saw an increasy in company loyalty, but a slight drop in other categories.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

Spydus all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg SatisfactionLevelILS 34 7.00 1 0 0 14 7.36 12 6.42 1 1 0 ILSFunctionality 33 6.70 1 0 0 13 6.92 12 6.58 1 1 0 PrintFunctionality 34 7.26 1 0 0 14 7.50 12 7.17 1 1 0 ElectronicFunctionality 34 5.85 1 0 0 14 6.43 12 5.17 1 1 0 SatisfactionCustomerSupport 34 6.35 1 0 0 14 6.86 12 5.50 1 1 0 CompanyLoyalty 33 6.91 1 0 0 14 7.29 12 6.50 0 1 0

Koha

top

Support provider Responses General Satisfaction All Installations 360 7.49 ByWater Solutions 173 7.75 Independent 61 7.66 LibLime 35 6.31 PTFS Europe 19 7.32 BibLibre 5 -- Catalyst 6 -- Kobli 3 -- Equinox 5 -- Interleaf Technology 5 --

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 360 libraries using Koha responded to the survey. Libraries of all types use Koha, reflected in this year’s responses:

Consortium: 9

School: 21

Large Academic: 3

Medium Academic: 15

Small Academic: 84

Large Public: 0

Medium Public: 14

Small Public: 109

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

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

Koha all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg SatisfactionLevelILS 360 7.49 84 7.29 15 8.13 3 109 7.68 14 7.36 0 21 7.71 9 7.44 ILSFunctionality 358 7.27 84 6.99 15 7.60 3 108 7.48 13 7.00 0 21 7.43 9 7.00 PrintFunctionality 356 7.58 83 7.45 15 8.07 3 108 7.46 14 7.86 0 21 8.05 9 7.00 ElectronicFunctionality 342 6.17 82 6.01 15 6.00 3 101 6.37 14 6.00 0 20 6.50 9 5.44 SatisfactionCustomerSupport 345 7.52 80 7.28 14 7.86 3 106 7.68 14 7.57 0 21 7.57 9 7.78 CompanyLoyalty 339 6.99 79 6.57 14 8.07 3 105 7.25 14 7.57 0 20 7.25 9 6.89

ByWater Solutions

top

Koha supported by ByWater Solutions (full product report and narrative comments), (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 89 public libraries, 38 academics, 5 consortia, and 14 schools.

ByWater Solutions earned highest scores among mid-sized public libraries for overall satisfaction (7.77), ILS functionality (7.31), print functionality (7.92), electronic functionality (7.00), and ILS support (8.31. (6.46) and satisfaction with customer support (7.67). ByWater Solutions also received strong ratings among mid-sized academic libraries. 94.3 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 diminishing satisfaction from 2010 through 2014, with a significant improvement since 2015.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

Koha -- ByWater Solutions all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg SatisfactionLevelILS 173 7.75 32 7.56 4 0 80 7.79 8 7.88 0 14 7.43 6 7.50 ILSFunctionality 172 7.47 32 7.34 4 0 79 7.58 8 7.38 0 14 7.07 6 6.67 PrintFunctionality 172 7.72 32 7.63 4 0 79 7.66 8 8.00 0 14 7.71 6 7.17 ElectronicFunctionality 164 6.48 31 6.16 4 0 75 6.32 8 6.63 0 13 6.46 6 5.33 SatisfactionCustomerSupport 171 7.93 31 7.71 4 0 79 7.81 8 8.63 0 14 7.71 6 7.83 CompanyLoyalty 169 7.41 32 7.44 4 0 77 7.31 8 7.00 0 13 7.00 6 7.83

Evergreen

top

Evergreen, (full product report and narrative comments). an open source ILS implemented primarily in consortia of public libraries received 142 survey responses this year. Of these responses, 98 were from small public libraries, 10 from medium sized public libraries, 7 from small academics, and 3 from mid-sized academics (see charts for library type and library size). Among small public libraries, Evergreen received the higher ratings for its print functionality (7.42) than for functionality for electronic resources (6.50).

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

Equinox software received the highest ratings by mid-sized public libraries in the category of print functionality (7.30).

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

Evergreen all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg SatisfactionLevelILS 142 7.27 7 6.29 3 1 98 7.43 10 6.80 1 1 15 7.40 ILSFunctionality 142 7.08 7 6.00 3 1 98 7.31 10 6.70 1 1 15 7.13 PrintFunctionality 142 7.43 7 6.57 3 1 98 7.50 10 7.30 1 1 15 7.67 ElectronicFunctionality 138 6.28 7 5.43 3 1 95 6.57 10 5.10 1 1 15 6.00 SatisfactionCustomerSupport 135 7.61 7 6.86 2 1 93 7.84 10 6.90 1 1 14 7.64 CompanyLoyalty 127 7.04 6 6.33 3 1 90 7.21 8 6.88 1 1 14 6.43

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.

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 312 libraries using Destiny responded to the survey, with 267 from schools and 30 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 7.54 and 6.83 for publics. This product was seen as weakest in functionality for electronic resources (all responses: 6.56; schools: 6.76). Destiny has seen steadily rising scores in the survey since 2010, with a spike in 2013.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

Destiny all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg SatisfactionLevelILS 312 7.46 8 7.00 0 0 30 6.83 0 0 266 7.54 1 ILSFunctionality 310 7.29 7 6.57 0 0 30 6.53 0 0 265 7.40 1 PrintFunctionality 309 7.88 8 7.25 0 0 30 7.30 0 0 263 7.97 1 ElectronicFunctionality 303 6.56 8 6.13 0 0 30 5.20 0 0 257 6.76 1 SatisfactionCustomerSupport 304 7.64 7 6.86 0 0 29 7.10 0 0 260 7.73 1 CompanyLoyalty 301 7.30 8 5.00 0 0 30 6.30 0 0 255 7.48 1

Circulation Plus, Athena, Winnebago Spectrum

Follett’s legacy products continue to see use, through the numbers are diminishing. This year 1 library using Winnebago Spectrum 2 using 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 261 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, 165 responses for OPALS came from school libraries, 8 from consortia, 5 from small public libraries, and 23 from small academic libraries.

OPALS received top ratings in all categories by libraries serving PreK-12 Schools: Overall satisfaction (8.89), ILS functionality (8.85), print functionality (8.90), electronic resource functionality (8.90), and company loyalty (8.77). OPALS also received top ratings in all categories for small academic libraries.

The following table presents the 2017 survey results by library type and size

OPALS all Academic Public School Consortium small medium large small medium large n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg n avg SatisfactionLevelILS 261 8.85 17 8.76 1 0 7 8.57 0 0 163 8.89 8 8.88 ILSFunctionality 259 8.81 17 8.59 1 0 6 8.50 0 0 162 8.85 8 8.88 PrintFunctionality 260 8.89 17 8.71 1 0 7 8.71 0 0 164 8.90 8 8.88 ElectronicFunctionality 220 8.05 16 7.81 1 0 6 7.83 0 0 148 8.16 6 6.67 SatisfactionCustomerSupport 261 8.85 17 8.82 1 0 7 8.71 0 0 164 8.85 8 8.75 CompanyLoyalty 254 8.74 17 8.82 1 0 7 8.14 0 0 160 8.77 8 8.75

FOLIO

top

FOLIO is an open source initiative to create a new library services platform with financial backing from EBSCO Information Systems (vendor profile) with initial development contracted to Index Data, and with the Open Library Environment providing community engagement and educational activities. See EBSCO Supports New Open Source Project published by American Libraries for further information on FOLIO.

Still in its development phase, the software is not yet complete and no libraries have yet implemented it in production. The results of this survey do provide some indicators for the level of interest for FOLIO. Of libraries indicating interest in moving to a new automation system, 59 mentioned FOLIO as a candidate. FOLIO was publicly announced in April of 2016. When specifically asked which open source products may be of interest, regardless of active plans to migrate, 135 mentioned FOLIO, 250 mentioned Koha, 107 mentioned Evergreen, and 4 mentioned Kuali OLE. FOLIO was mentioned 12 times in narrative comments.

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 (2017)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Polaris 35 1 4 10 15 5 8 7.51 8 1.35 Symphony 43 2 2 7 19 9 4 7 7.00 7 0.61 Horizon 20 4 1 8 7 7 6.90 7 1.79 Sierra 28 1 3 4 7 10 3 7 6.11 6 0.94 All Responses 152 2 6 12 27 54 40 11 7 6.90 7 0.65

View report with these selections across multiple years

Large Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2017)

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') (2017)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Polaris 35 1 3 14 15 2 8 7.31 7 1.35 Symphony 43 2 7 6 16 10 2 7 6.72 7 0.61 Horizon 20 1 4 1 10 4 7 6.60 7 1.79 Sierra 28 4 5 10 3 6 6 6.07 6 0.76 All Responses 152 1 1 8 20 24 51 43 4 7 6.70 7 0.65

View report with these selections across multiple years

Large Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2016)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2016)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Polaris 35 2 2 8 14 9 8 7.74 8 1.18 Horizon 20 1 2 2 5 5 5 7 7.30 8 1.79 Symphony 43 1 1 2 5 14 14 6 7 7.09 7 0.91 Sierra 28 1 2 4 3 10 5 3 7 6.54 7 1.13 All Responses 152 2 1 6 11 15 43 49 25 8 7.17 7 0.65

View report with these selections across multiple years

Large Public Libraries: effectiveness for electronic resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2017)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Polaris 35 1 3 2 4 7 6 10 2 8 6.20 7 1.01 Symphony 42 1 2 2 4 9 7 9 7 1 5 5.76 6 0.62 Sierra 28 1 1 3 6 4 3 5 5 4 5.32 5 0.76 Horizon 20 2 3 1 3 6 3 2 6 5.15 6 1.34 All Responses 150 5 6 11 14 22 31 28 30 3 6 5.77 6 0.49

View report with these selections across multiple years

Large Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2017)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize > '500001') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Symphony 43 1 1 1 3 6 18 13 8 7.67 8 1.22 Horizon 20 1 1 1 1 5 7 4 8 7.20 8 1.79 Polaris 34 1 1 1 4 15 8 4 7 7.09 7 0.86 Sierra 28 1 1 5 3 4 2 8 3 1 6 4.39 5 0.57 All Responses 151 1 2 7 6 7 12 18 34 40 24 8 6.65 7 0.65

View report with these selections across multiple years

Large Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2017)

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') (2017)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Polaris 34 1 3 1 13 8 8 7 7.38 7 1.37 Horizon 19 1 1 1 4 2 6 4 8 6.89 8 2.06 Symphony 42 2 1 1 1 5 2 9 9 12 9 6.88 8 0.62 Sierra 27 1 1 2 3 2 7 1 3 4 3 5 5.30 5 0.96 All Responses 145 4 2 4 7 3 17 13 29 32 34 9 6.70 7 0.75

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2017)

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') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Koha -- ByWater Solutions 13 1 1 1 7 3 8 7.77 8 2.22 Evergreen -- Equinox Software 17 1 2 7 5 2 7 7.29 7 1.70 Spydus 15 1 2 5 6 1 8 7.27 7 1.81 Polaris 75 1 1 3 11 25 26 8 8 7.20 7 0.00 Library.Solution 30 1 3 1 5 7 6 7 7 6.97 7 1.46 Horizon 41 1 2 6 6 11 8 7 7 6.83 7 1.25 Symphony 118 1 1 2 8 8 23 37 28 10 7 6.71 7 0.37 Sierra 74 2 2 5 6 19 20 18 2 7 6.43 7 0.93 All Responses 451 1 1 8 4 25 33 78 136 117 48 7 6.83 7 0.38

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2017)

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') (2017)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Koha -- ByWater Solutions 13 1 1 3 7 1 8 7.31 8 2.22 Polaris 75 1 2 3 9 25 26 9 8 7.25 7 0.46 Evergreen -- Equinox Software 17 1 2 8 5 1 7 7.18 7 1.70 Spydus 14 1 2 4 7 8 7.14 8 1.87 Library.Solution 30 1 5 4 8 8 4 7 6.97 7 1.46 Sierra 74 1 1 1 3 8 15 22 19 4 7 6.62 7 0.81 Symphony 118 3 1 9 9 26 37 27 6 7 6.57 7 0.37 Horizon 41 1 1 3 4 7 14 10 1 7 6.49 7 1.09 All Responses 449 1 6 7 23 36 82 137 125 32 7 6.78 7 0.38

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2017)

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') (2017)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Koha -- ByWater Solutions 13 1 3 5 4 8 7.92 8 1.94 Polaris 75 2 2 19 35 17 8 7.79 8 0.46 Spydus 15 1 4 8 2 8 7.73 8 2.07 Horizon 41 5 4 9 16 7 8 7.39 8 1.09 Sierra 74 1 2 3 11 17 29 11 8 7.32 8 0.93 Library.Solution 30 1 1 2 4 6 4 12 9 7.30 8 1.64 Symphony 117 3 1 3 10 12 26 45 17 8 7.16 8 0.46 Evergreen -- Equinox Software 17 1 2 7 6 1 7 6.94 7 1.94 All Responses 450 4 4 4 8 26 44 110 168 82 8 7.33 8 0.38

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2017)

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') (2017)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Koha -- ByWater Solutions 13 2 2 5 2 2 7 7.00 7 2.22 Polaris 74 1 1 5 1 3 7 15 21 15 5 7 6.26 7 0.23 Library.Solution 29 1 3 3 3 3 8 3 5 7 6.07 7 1.30 Symphony 118 2 3 9 5 9 18 18 31 16 7 7 5.75 6 0.18 Spydus 15 1 1 2 6 1 4 5 5.47 5 1.29 Evergreen -- Equinox Software 17 2 1 1 2 4 4 3 6 5.41 6 1.70 Sierra 71 2 2 4 6 7 14 13 15 5 3 7 5.30 6 0.71 Horizon 40 1 1 4 4 6 6 7 7 4 6 4.95 5 1.26 All Responses 445 14 10 28 21 42 68 73 108 55 26 7 5.63 6 0.33

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2017)

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') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Koha -- ByWater Solutions 13 1 1 3 8 9 8.31 9 2.22 Library.Solution 30 2 3 6 4 15 9 7.83 9 1.64 Horizon 39 2 2 1 5 9 11 9 8 7.10 8 1.44 Symphony 115 2 4 5 8 17 20 34 25 8 7.09 8 0.28 Evergreen -- Equinox Software 17 1 1 1 4 3 3 4 6 6.71 7 2.18 Polaris 71 1 2 3 4 2 10 27 13 9 7 6.66 7 0.00 Spydus 15 1 1 1 4 4 2 2 6 6.40 7 1.03 Sierra 73 7 7 3 7 9 10 17 9 4 7 5.34 6 0.82 All Responses 441 1 8 16 18 24 25 59 100 96 94 7 6.76 7 0.43

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2017)

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') (2017)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Spydus 15 1 2 4 2 6 9 7.60 8 2.32 Evergreen -- Equinox Software 16 1 1 1 3 3 7 9 7.06 8 2.25 Library.Solution 30 1 1 2 4 2 3 6 11 9 7.00 8 1.46 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 13 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 9 6.85 8 1.11 Symphony 112 4 1 6 7 12 13 28 23 18 7 6.44 7 0.19 Polaris 73 5 1 2 8 7 10 11 13 16 9 6.29 7 0.00 Horizon 41 2 3 3 2 1 9 5 7 9 6 6.20 7 1.25 Sierra 72 4 2 3 7 4 11 13 9 11 8 6 5.57 6 1.06 All Responses 440 24 4 17 13 28 40 61 77 78 98 9 6.36 7 0.38

View report with these selections across multiple years

Small Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2017)

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') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Apollo 45 2 1 10 32 9 8.60 9 1.34 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 41 1 4 8 7 21 9 8.02 9 1.25 Atriuum 34 1 1 6 15 11 8 7.91 8 1.54 Evergreen -- Independent 14 1 1 5 3 4 7 7.57 8 1.87 Polaris 67 1 1 1 5 6 18 21 14 8 7.31 8 0.98 Evergreen -- Equinox Software 30 1 1 2 2 7 12 5 8 7.30 8 1.10 VERSO 39 1 1 2 2 7 7 16 3 8 6.77 7 0.96 Symphony 76 3 2 2 2 3 12 22 19 11 7 6.71 7 1.03 Library.Solution 37 2 2 3 4 6 2 10 8 8 6.59 7 1.32 Sierra 31 2 4 8 12 3 2 7 6.45 7 1.44 All Responses 498 5 8 15 11 26 59 113 136 125 8 7.21 8 0.40

View report with these selections across multiple years

Small Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2017)

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') (2017)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Apollo 44 2 5 16 21 9 8.27 8 1.36 Atriuum 34 1 2 6 17 8 8 7.79 8 1.54 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 40 1 4 10 15 10 8 7.72 8 1.26 Evergreen -- Independent 14 1 1 5 3 4 7 7.57 8 1.87 Polaris 65 1 1 3 2 22 21 15 7 7.55 8 0.87 Evergreen -- Equinox Software 30 1 3 4 8 8 6 7 7.23 7 1.10 Symphony 76 1 5 2 3 10 22 20 13 7 6.91 7 1.03 VERSO 39 2 1 1 2 5 10 15 3 8 6.87 7 0.96 Sierra 31 1 1 3 8 12 3 3 7 6.61 7 1.44 Library.Solution 37 1 2 5 3 4 5 12 5 8 6.57 7 1.32 All Responses 495 1 1 11 9 16 20 60 126 149 102 8 7.20 8 0.40

View report with these selections across multiple years

Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2017)

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') (2017)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Apollo 45 1 1 2 2 12 27 9 8.31 9 1.19 Evergreen -- Independent 14 3 1 6 4 8 7.79 8 1.60 Atriuum 34 2 1 4 12 15 9 7.76 8 1.54 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 40 1 1 3 8 11 16 9 7.75 8 1.11 Polaris 67 1 1 1 2 5 12 24 21 8 7.63 8 0.98 Evergreen -- Equinox Software 30 2 1 4 7 8 8 8 7.40 8 1.10 Sierra 31 2 5 12 10 2 7 7.16 7 1.44 VERSO 36 1 1 2 2 5 8 14 3 8 6.83 7 0.67 Symphony 73 2 1 3 3 5 8 15 23 13 8 6.82 7 1.05 Library.Solution 37 1 1 3 2 3 4 2 13 8 8 6.70 8 1.32 All Responses 491 8 2 6 6 17 21 51 86 157 137 8 7.34 8 0.41

View report with these selections across multiple years

Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2017)

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') (2017)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Apollo 45 1 1 2 3 12 26 9 8.27 9 1.34 Atriuum 32 3 3 4 5 10 7 8 6.69 8 1.59 Polaris 66 1 2 1 8 5 9 18 12 10 7 6.52 7 0.86 Evergreen -- Equinox Software 30 2 1 6 3 10 6 2 7 6.47 7 1.10 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 39 3 1 1 6 8 5 11 4 8 6.41 7 1.28 Evergreen -- Independent 14 1 1 2 1 6 2 1 7 6.36 7 1.60 VERSO 37 1 1 1 2 3 4 6 4 14 1 8 6.11 7 0.66 Symphony 76 1 1 6 3 4 11 13 19 15 3 7 5.93 6 0.80 Library.Solution 36 3 1 2 4 2 2 3 2 14 3 8 5.72 7 1.33 Sierra 31 1 3 2 3 4 5 5 4 2 2 5 4.81 5 1.44 All Responses 489 13 9 22 22 33 52 69 90 109 70 8 6.25 7 0.32

View report with these selections across multiple years

Small Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2017)

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') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Apollo 43 1 2 5 35 9 8.63 9 1.37 Atriuum 34 1 5 9 19 9 8.26 9 1.54 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 40 1 3 8 5 23 9 8.05 9 1.26 Evergreen -- Equinox Software 28 2 2 5 6 13 9 7.93 8 1.13 Evergreen -- Independent 13 2 4 7 9 7.92 9 2.50 VERSO 39 1 1 2 3 2 7 13 10 8 7.18 8 0.96 Library.Solution 37 2 1 4 2 3 5 7 13 9 7.00 8 1.32 Polaris 62 2 3 2 4 10 12 15 14 8 6.92 7 1.02 Symphony 72 3 1 1 3 7 5 22 15 15 7 6.86 7 1.06 Sierra 30 1 3 1 1 8 5 7 2 2 5 5.53 6 1.46 All Responses 481 2 6 8 10 23 37 36 88 98 173 9 7.28 8 0.41

View report with these selections across multiple years

Small Public Libraries: Company Loyalty (2017)

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') (2017)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Apollo 43 1 2 5 35 9 8.63 9 1.37 Atriuum 34 1 5 9 19 9 8.26 9 1.54 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 40 1 3 8 5 23 9 8.05 9 1.26 Evergreen -- Equinox Software 28 2 2 5 6 13 9 7.93 8 1.13 Evergreen -- Independent 13 2 4 7 9 7.92 9 2.50 VERSO 39 1 1 2 3 2 7 13 10 8 7.18 8 0.96 Library.Solution 37 2 1 4 2 3 5 7 13 9 7.00 8 1.32 Polaris 62 2 3 2 4 10 12 15 14 8 6.92 7 1.02 Symphony 72 3 1 1 3 7 5 22 15 15 7 6.86 7 1.06 Horizon 11 2 3 2 3 1 5 5.82 6 1.81 Sierra 30 1 3 1 1 8 5 7 2 2 5 5.53 6 1.46 All Responses 481 2 6 8 10 23 37 36 88 98 173 9 7.28 8 0.41

View report with these selections across multiple years

Very Small Public Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Apollo 78 3 3 21 51 9 8.54 9 0.91 Atriuum 56 1 2 2 1 2 3 15 30 9 7.93 9 1.07 Koha -- LibLime 12 2 1 7 2 8 7.75 8 1.73 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 33 2 2 2 7 11 9 8 7.52 8 1.39 Evergreen -- Equinox Software 22 1 2 8 7 4 7 7.50 8 1.92 VERSO 62 2 3 2 11 6 18 20 9 7.42 8 0.51 Symphony 51 1 1 1 3 5 12 12 16 9 7.33 8 1.12 Polaris 44 2 2 4 2 9 15 10 8 7.20 8 1.21 Library.Solution 17 1 2 1 4 4 5 9 7.06 8 2.18 Destiny 22 1 2 2 3 6 4 4 7 6.77 7 1.71 Sierra 13 1 4 6 1 1 7 6.77 7 1.94 All Responses 488 1 7 10 18 20 42 86 126 178 9 7.54 8 0.36

View report with these selections across multiple years

Very Small Public Libraries: Overall ILS Functionality (2017)

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 < '30000') (2017)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Apollo 78 1 2 6 29 40 9 8.35 9 0.91 Atriuum 56 1 2 2 5 22 24 9 7.91 8 1.07 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 33 1 4 1 8 11 8 8 7.45 8 1.39 Polaris 44 2 1 2 2 11 17 9 8 7.41 8 1.21 Library.Solution 17 1 2 4 7 3 8 7.35 8 1.94 Koha -- LibLime 12 1 2 2 6 1 8 7.25 8 1.73 VERSO 62 1 3 2 4 8 8 18 18 8 7.24 8 0.76 Evergreen -- Equinox Software 22 2 3 7 8 2 8 7.23 7 1.71 Symphony 51 1 1 1 1 2 2 18 14 11 7 7.18 7 1.12 Sierra 13 1 1 3 5 2 1 7 6.69 7 2.22 Destiny 22 3 1 4 7 5 2 7 6.59 7 1.49 All Responses 487 1 1 5 16 13 22 34 99 156 140 8 7.45 8 0.36

View report with these selections across multiple years

Very Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2017)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Apollo 78 2 1 1 1 2 4 19 48 9 8.15 9 0.91 Atriuum 55 1 1 1 1 2 3 18 28 9 8.05 9 1.08 Koha -- LibLime 12 2 8 2 8 8.00 8 2.02 Evergreen -- Equinox Software 22 1 7 6 8 9 7.95 8 1.71 Polaris 44 2 2 4 4 13 19 9 7.80 8 1.21 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 33 1 2 1 1 6 11 11 8 7.52 8 1.39 VERSO 60 1 3 3 6 9 21 17 8 7.50 8 0.52 Destiny 22 1 1 2 8 6 4 7 7.32 7 1.71 Library.Solution 17 1 2 2 2 6 4 8 7.29 8 2.18 Sierra 13 1 2 5 4 1 7 7.15 7 2.22 Symphony 50 1 1 1 1 2 7 12 13 12 8 7.08 8 1.13 All Responses 483 7 1 3 8 14 19 34 78 142 177 9 7.58 8 0.36

View report with these selections across multiple years

Very Small Public Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2017)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Apollo 77 3 1 1 3 7 25 37 9 7.91 8 0.57 Koha -- LibLime 10 1 2 5 2 8 7.80 8 2.21 Polaris 43 1 1 2 3 4 6 13 13 8 7.21 8 1.22 Atriuum 51 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 10 13 17 9 7.18 8 0.98 VERSO 60 1 1 6 8 6 6 18 14 8 6.92 8 0.52 Evergreen -- Equinox Software 21 1 1 2 5 4 4 4 6 6.81 7 1.75 Library.Solution 17 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 3 8 6.47 8 1.94 Symphony 49 2 2 1 8 3 8 7 7 11 9 6.20 7 1.14 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 30 3 1 2 7 2 3 7 5 5 5.93 7 0.91 Sierra 12 1 3 1 3 4 8 5.92 7 2.31 Destiny 22 3 2 1 4 2 4 3 3 5 5.23 6 1.49 All Responses 463 19 10 7 10 28 42 38 67 121 121 8 6.76 8 0.37

View report with these selections across multiple years

Very Small Public Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Public) (CollectionSize < '30000') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Apollo 78 1 1 5 11 60 9 8.64 9 1.02 Atriuum 56 1 1 1 2 1 16 34 9 8.21 9 1.07 VERSO 62 1 2 8 9 13 29 9 7.90 8 0.89 Evergreen -- Equinox Software 20 1 4 9 6 8 7.90 8 2.01 Library.Solution 17 2 1 1 6 7 9 7.76 8 2.18 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 33 1 1 2 5 7 2 15 9 7.48 8 0.87 Symphony 50 1 1 2 4 3 6 17 16 8 7.42 8 1.13 Polaris 42 1 1 1 2 3 3 5 14 12 8 7.17 8 1.23 Destiny 21 2 1 4 4 3 7 9 7.10 7 1.53 Sierra 12 1 1 3 2 3 2 5 5.92 6 1.15 All Responses 479 4 1 4 9 14 26 30 59 111 221 9 7.71 8 0.37

View report with these selections across multiple years

Very Small Public Libraries: Company loyalty (2017)

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 < '30000') (2017)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Apollo 77 1 2 1 5 12 56 9 8.51 9 0.91 Atriuum 54 4 1 2 8 11 28 9 7.57 9 1.09 Koha -- LibLime 12 1 1 3 3 4 9 7.42 8 2.02 VERSO 56 2 4 2 7 9 13 19 9 7.36 8 0.40 Evergreen -- Equinox Software 19 2 1 1 2 7 6 8 7.11 8 2.06 Symphony 50 2 1 2 4 5 10 11 15 9 7.08 8 1.27 Library.Solution 17 1 1 2 3 4 6 9 6.88 8 2.18 Polaris 41 2 2 3 3 6 2 12 11 8 6.78 8 1.25 Sierra 12 1 2 3 2 2 2 6 6.67 7 1.15 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 30 1 2 1 2 3 2 5 3 11 9 6.57 7 1.28 Destiny 22 1 1 3 3 1 4 3 6 9 6.55 7 1.49 All Responses 467 14 4 5 10 22 31 32 62 96 191 9 7.28 8 0.37

View report with these selections across multiple years

All Public Libraries: General ILS satisfaction (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Public) (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Apollo 130 1 5 6 32 86 9 8.51 9 0.79 Atriuum 95 2 2 2 1 4 10 32 42 9 7.91 8 0.82 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 89 3 3 7 16 27 33 9 7.80 8 0.85 Evergreen -- Independent 25 1 2 1 6 6 9 9 7.64 8 1.80 Evergreen -- Equinox Software 73 1 1 4 7 23 26 11 8 7.36 8 0.82 Polaris 224 1 3 1 5 12 23 63 77 39 8 7.30 8 0.00 V-smart 12 2 6 3 1 7 7.25 7 2.31 Libero 23 1 1 4 8 5 4 7 7.17 7 1.25 VERSO 110 1 2 4 4 4 20 14 38 23 8 7.10 8 0.76 Spydus 28 1 1 5 12 8 1 7 6.96 7 1.13 Koha -- LibLime 18 1 1 4 3 7 2 8 6.89 8 1.41 Symphony 297 4 1 4 5 12 18 48 92 70 43 7 6.87 7 0.23 Destiny 30 2 2 3 3 8 6 6 7 6.83 7 1.46 Library.Solution 85 4 2 8 6 12 13 20 20 8 6.81 7 0.87 Horizon 81 1 4 13 10 24 21 8 7 6.80 7 0.89 Sierra 148 2 5 8 16 38 49 25 5 7 6.40 7 0.66 Millennium 14 1 4 4 4 1 5 5.71 6 1.60 All Responses 1618 7 2 23 31 61 95 209 396 426 368 8 7.17 7 0.20

View report with these selections across multiple years

All Public Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Public) (2017)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Apollo 129 1 1 4 13 47 63 9 8.27 8 0.79 Atriuum 95 1 3 2 4 11 40 34 8 7.85 8 0.82 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 88 2 6 5 21 35 19 8 7.57 8 0.85 Evergreen -- Independent 25 1 2 1 7 7 7 7 7.52 8 1.60 Polaris 222 1 4 4 8 16 72 80 37 8 7.40 8 0.27 V-smart 12 3 4 3 2 7 7.33 7 2.60 Libero 23 1 5 6 9 2 8 7.22 7 1.46 Evergreen -- Equinox Software 73 1 7 9 25 22 9 7 7.19 7 0.82 VERSO 110 4 4 4 7 16 19 35 21 8 6.99 8 0.57 Library.Solution 85 1 2 7 10 8 18 27 12 8 6.87 7 0.87 Symphony 297 1 2 9 1 14 22 46 96 72 34 7 6.80 7 0.23 Spydus 27 2 8 9 8 7 6.78 7 1.15 Destiny 30 1 4 1 6 7 7 4 7 6.53 7 1.28 Sierra 148 1 1 2 9 18 36 42 31 8 7 6.52 7 0.58 Horizon 81 1 1 7 8 14 30 19 1 7 6.52 7 0.89 Koha -- LibLime 18 1 1 1 5 3 6 1 8 6.50 7 1.41 Millennium 14 1 1 4 2 4 2 5 5.64 6 0.80 All Responses 1612 2 3 23 34 61 101 204 420 480 284 8 7.11 7 0.20

View report with these selections across multiple years

All Public Libraries: Overall ILS Support (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Apollo 128 1 1 1 1 8 18 98 9 8.58 9 0.80 Atriuum 95 1 2 2 2 1 6 26 55 9 8.18 9 0.82 Libero 23 1 2 1 9 10 9 8.09 8 1.88 Evergreen -- Independent 24 2 1 1 8 12 9 8.00 9 1.84 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 88 1 2 6 5 16 10 48 9 7.90 9 0.85 VERSO 110 1 1 4 5 10 18 29 42 9 7.63 8 0.86 Evergreen -- Equinox Software 69 1 1 2 3 6 13 20 23 9 7.57 8 1.08 Library.Solution 85 2 1 8 3 7 12 17 35 9 7.42 8 0.98 Symphony 289 1 4 3 8 10 21 29 56 87 70 8 7.17 8 0.18 Destiny 29 3 1 1 5 4 5 10 9 7.10 8 1.30 V-smart 12 2 1 6 1 2 7 7.00 7 2.02 Horizon 79 3 2 4 6 9 18 21 16 8 6.96 7 0.90 Polaris 211 2 2 3 8 9 10 27 59 50 41 7 6.93 7 0.00 Koha -- LibLime 17 1 2 3 3 3 5 9 6.82 7 1.21 Spydus 28 1 1 1 3 10 5 5 2 6 6.25 6 0.94 Millennium 14 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 1 6 5.64 6 1.34 Sierra 145 2 8 16 8 13 22 26 30 14 6 7 5.23 6 0.58 All Responses 1580 8 17 36 44 68 101 149 285 353 519 9 7.20 8 0.20

View report with these selections across multiple years

Academic Libraries

top

Large Academic Libraries: General ILS satisfaction (2017)

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Alma 66 2 5 6 32 20 1 7 7.00 7 0.86 Symphony 16 2 1 5 3 4 1 6 6.31 7 0.50 ALEPH 500 25 1 1 2 5 2 10 3 1 7 6.08 7 1.00 Sierra 56 1 4 9 8 12 11 9 2 6 5.88 6 1.07 Voyager 25 2 1 3 6 6 6 1 5 5.40 6 1.60 All Responses 226 1 1 6 9 20 27 40 75 42 5 7 6.20 7 0.47

View report with these selections across multiple years

Large Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2017)

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') (2017)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Alma 66 2 3 15 31 14 1 7 6.83 7 0.86 Symphony 16 1 1 1 1 5 3 3 1 6 6.00 6 0.50 Sierra 55 1 8 4 9 11 15 6 1 7 5.73 6 0.94 ALEPH 500 25 1 1 7 4 5 5 2 4 5.32 5 1.00 Voyager 25 1 4 2 8 5 3 2 5 5.16 5 1.60 All Responses 225 2 7 16 19 30 48 68 32 3 7 5.94 6 0.47

View report with these selections across multiple years

Large Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2017)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Sierra 56 1 2 5 23 14 11 7 7.43 7 1.20 Symphony 15 1 2 3 7 2 8 7.40 8 1.03 ALEPH 500 24 1 2 10 8 3 7 7.38 7 1.22 Alma 66 2 6 2 27 25 4 7 7.20 7 0.86 Voyager 25 1 1 5 10 8 7 6.92 7 1.60 All Responses 223 1 1 6 11 21 84 72 27 7 7.25 7 0.47

View report with these selections across multiple years

Large Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2017)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Alma 66 2 3 17 20 21 3 8 6.97 7 0.98 Sierra 55 1 2 4 7 8 16 6 8 2 1 5 4.73 5 0.94 Symphony 16 2 2 1 1 4 2 3 1 5 4.63 5 0.25 Voyager 24 1 3 2 5 7 1 3 2 4 3.63 4 1.22 ALEPH 500 25 2 1 7 5 2 4 1 3 2 3.40 3 0.20 All Responses 224 8 10 23 20 25 33 31 44 26 4 7 5.00 5 0.47

View report with these selections across multiple years

Large Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize > '1000001') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Symphony 13 1 1 2 1 1 3 4 9 6.69 8 0.00 Alma 65 2 4 3 12 9 19 12 4 7 6.26 7 0.37 ALEPH 500 25 2 2 3 4 8 4 2 7 6.20 7 1.00 Voyager 25 2 4 2 3 9 5 7 6.12 7 1.40 Sierra 57 1 6 1 7 9 8 8 8 8 1 4 4.95 5 1.06 All Responses 223 4 6 7 18 19 29 37 52 38 13 7 5.84 6 0.47

View report with these selections across multiple years

Large Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2017)

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') (2017)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Alma 65 1 1 1 1 8 5 12 20 16 8 7.15 8 0.87 ALEPH 500 24 2 4 2 3 5 8 9 7.13 8 1.22 Voyager 25 4 4 4 4 3 6 9 6.64 7 1.60 Symphony 15 2 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 4 4.93 5 0.00 Sierra 56 6 1 2 7 6 13 5 7 6 3 5 4.80 5 1.20 All Responses 223 15 5 7 9 16 35 24 30 41 41 8 5.99 7 0.60

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2017)

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') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Alma 97 2 1 2 10 26 37 15 4 7 6.56 7 0.51 Symphony 49 1 2 2 1 6 12 11 10 4 6 6.33 7 1.14 Sierra 75 3 3 7 8 15 24 13 2 7 6.17 7 0.69 WorldShare Management Services 41 1 1 2 2 4 12 11 7 1 6 6.10 6 0.78 Millennium 26 1 2 1 2 4 5 7 2 2 7 5.73 6 1.18 Voyager 32 1 3 3 9 3 9 4 5 5.66 6 0.88 ALEPH 500 24 2 1 1 2 2 8 4 4 6 5.38 6 1.63 All Responses 393 3 3 12 13 22 49 88 113 65 25 7 6.27 7 0.40

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2017)

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') (2017)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Alma 96 1 2 2 8 12 39 28 4 7 6.89 7 0.61 Symphony 49 2 2 1 7 15 8 11 3 6 6.29 6 1.00 Sierra 75 4 1 5 15 13 16 17 4 8 6.24 6 0.58 WorldShare Management Services 41 1 2 2 2 4 10 10 10 6 6.05 6 0.78 Millennium 26 2 3 2 4 7 4 1 3 6 5.62 6 1.18 Voyager 32 2 2 5 7 5 7 2 2 5 5.56 6 0.88 ALEPH 500 24 1 1 1 6 3 3 4 4 1 4 5.46 6 1.63 All Responses 392 2 2 13 17 25 53 71 103 84 22 7 6.28 7 0.35

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2017)

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') (2017)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Voyager 30 1 1 5 7 12 4 8 7.33 8 1.28 Sierra 75 1 2 2 2 5 19 32 12 8 7.32 8 0.81 ALEPH 500 24 1 1 5 4 9 4 8 7.21 8 1.84 Symphony 49 1 1 1 3 5 16 15 7 7 7.12 7 1.14 Millennium 26 1 1 3 1 8 8 4 7 7.08 7 1.37 Alma 97 2 1 4 6 13 37 28 6 7 6.89 7 0.61 WorldShare Management Services 40 1 1 4 5 4 7 12 6 8 6.67 7 1.26 All Responses 389 2 6 5 14 21 45 109 129 58 8 7.13 7 0.41

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2017)

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') (2017)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Alma 97 3 3 1 8 19 33 23 7 7 6.71 7 0.61 WorldShare Management Services 41 1 1 1 2 2 11 9 10 4 6 6.49 7 1.25 Sierra 74 2 5 3 7 10 14 10 12 11 5 5.05 5 0.58 Symphony 49 1 7 5 5 1 6 11 5 7 1 6 4.73 5 0.86 Millennium 26 1 2 4 2 4 5 3 2 2 1 5 4.38 5 0.98 Voyager 32 7 5 4 3 3 4 4 1 1 1 3.91 4 0.18 ALEPH 500 23 4 2 6 4 2 1 2 2 2 3.30 2 1.67 All Responses 390 13 29 31 27 28 44 64 76 63 15 7 5.28 6 0.30

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2017)

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') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Symphony 48 1 2 2 2 7 6 19 9 8 6.98 8 1.15 Voyager 32 1 1 2 4 7 4 10 3 8 6.50 7 0.71 WorldShare Management Services 41 1 1 1 1 7 7 11 6 6 7 6.46 7 0.78 Alma 96 4 1 2 11 13 19 26 14 6 7 6.07 6 0.61 ALEPH 500 22 1 1 3 2 3 8 4 7 5.91 7 1.49 Sierra 75 2 4 2 7 8 11 19 11 9 2 6 5.29 6 0.58 Millennium 26 1 3 3 3 3 4 7 2 7 5.04 6 0.59 All Responses 386 6 13 9 18 29 45 71 85 72 38 7 6.13 7 0.41

View report with these selections across multiple years

Medium-sized Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2017)

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') (2017)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev Voyager 32 2 1 3 5 5 8 8 8 6.97 8 1.24 Alma 97 3 1 4 7 7 12 18 22 23 9 6.81 7 0.51 ALEPH 500 23 2 1 5 2 4 1 8 9 6.35 7 1.88 Symphony 48 2 4 3 2 3 8 10 9 7 7 6.10 7 1.15 WorldShare Management Services 41 3 2 1 2 2 6 5 9 3 8 7 5.78 6 0.62 Sierra 75 2 2 6 7 11 11 11 13 10 2 7 5.19 5 0.46 Millennium 26 1 2 4 3 1 4 3 3 3 2 2 4.77 5 1.18 All Responses 390 11 11 20 23 26 43 50 71 65 70 7 6.12 7 0.41

View report with these selections across multiple years

Smaller Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev OPALS 17 2 15 9 8.76 9 2.18 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 32 2 2 11 8 9 7 7.56 8 0.71 Koha -- Independent 20 1 1 1 6 5 6 7 7.45 8 2.01 VERSO 14 1 1 5 5 2 7 7.43 8 2.14 WorldShare Management Services 59 1 2 3 14 21 12 6 7 6.85 7 1.17 Sierra 75 2 4 5 5 13 27 15 4 7 6.45 7 1.04 Alma 54 2 3 4 9 7 18 8 3 7 6.17 7 0.68 Symphony 74 1 4 5 7 8 7 26 10 6 7 6.08 7 0.58 Horizon 15 2 1 3 1 4 3 1 7 5.93 7 1.81 ALEPH 500 31 1 2 3 7 7 5 6 5 5.81 6 0.54 Voyager 35 1 2 5 4 2 7 9 4 1 7 5.49 6 1.35 Millennium 21 1 2 2 2 2 5 3 3 1 6 5.33 6 1.53 All Responses 546 2 2 18 27 35 48 78 153 111 72 7 6.55 7 0.39

View report with these selections across multiple years

Smaller Academic Libraries: Overall ILS functionality (2017)

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 < '200001') (2017)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev OPALS 17 1 1 15 9 8.59 9 2.18 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 32 2 5 10 8 7 7 7.34 7 0.71 VERSO 14 2 3 2 5 2 8 7.14 8 2.14 Koha -- Independent 20 1 1 2 1 5 4 6 9 7.10 8 2.01 WorldShare Management Services 59 1 1 1 5 8 19 19 5 7 6.95 7 1.17 Sierra 74 1 3 4 9 12 22 16 7 7 6.61 7 0.93 Alma 54 2 1 2 6 9 19 12 3 7 6.57 7 0.82 Symphony 74 4 6 7 8 9 18 16 6 7 6.16 7 0.81 ALEPH 500 31 3 2 5 1 6 8 4 2 7 5.77 6 0.36 Horizon 15 2 1 3 4 1 3 1 6 5.73 6 1.55 Voyager 34 2 1 1 7 4 5 5 7 2 4 5.71 6 1.37 Millennium 21 1 1 1 2 3 5 5 2 1 6 5.67 6 1.53 All Responses 542 1 5 18 23 34 47 86 137 120 71 7 6.56 7 0.34

View report with these selections across multiple years

Smaller Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for print resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's print resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2017)

Print Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev OPALS 17 1 1 15 9 8.71 9 2.18 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 32 2 1 10 11 8 8 7.63 8 0.71 Koha -- Independent 20 1 1 1 3 8 6 8 7.60 8 2.01 Sierra 75 2 5 6 22 22 18 7 7.48 8 1.04 VERSO 14 2 4 6 2 8 7.43 8 2.14 WorldShare Management Services 58 2 1 1 4 3 15 21 11 8 7.26 8 1.18 Symphony 74 2 2 3 6 7 17 24 13 8 7.05 8 0.81 Millennium 21 1 1 3 7 7 2 7 6.95 7 1.53 Alma 54 1 3 5 7 17 14 7 7 6.89 7 0.68 ALEPH 500 31 1 1 1 2 3 11 7 5 7 6.87 7 0.90 Horizon 15 1 2 3 2 5 2 8 6.87 7 1.81 Voyager 34 3 1 4 6 12 8 7 6.38 7 1.20 All Responses 543 1 9 15 12 38 51 140 165 112 8 7.21 8 0.39

View report with these selections across multiple years

Smaller Academic Libraries: Effectiveness for electronic resources (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2017)

Electronic Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev OPALS 16 1 6 3 6 7 7.81 8 1.75 Koha -- Independent 20 1 1 1 2 3 2 4 6 9 6.75 8 2.01 WorldShare Management Services 57 1 1 3 6 12 17 12 5 7 6.65 7 1.19 Alma 54 2 3 2 7 12 13 12 3 7 6.30 7 0.54 VERSO 14 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 6 6.29 7 2.14 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 31 1 1 2 1 2 1 5 8 6 4 7 6.16 7 0.72 Sierra 72 2 3 4 4 5 9 17 22 5 1 7 5.46 6 0.47 Symphony 73 5 3 7 10 4 13 7 15 5 4 7 4.81 5 0.35 Millennium 20 2 2 2 3 1 4 2 1 3 5 4.10 5 1.57 Horizon 14 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 0 3.86 4 0.80 Voyager 34 5 2 6 2 6 3 4 2 3 1 2 3.82 4 0.69 ALEPH 500 31 1 5 4 6 3 7 3 1 1 5 3.58 3 0.18 All Responses 534 20 26 36 42 33 68 84 112 69 44 7 5.49 6 0.17

View report with these selections across multiple years

Smaller Academic Libraries: Satisfaction with customer support (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is this library with this company's customer support services? (Library Type: Academic) (CollectionSize < '200001') (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Support Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev OPALS 17 1 16 9 8.82 9 2.18 VERSO 14 1 2 4 7 9 8.21 9 1.87 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 31 1 1 3 6 10 10 8 7.71 8 0.72 Koha -- Independent 18 1 1 1 3 3 9 9 7.61 9 2.12 Horizon 15 3 2 7 3 8 7.47 8 2.07 WorldShare Management Services 59 1 1 2 4 8 15 19 9 8 7.02 7 1.17 Symphony 73 2 5 5 8 6 17 17 13 7 6.67 7 0.82 ALEPH 500 31 1 3 7 3 9 4 4 7 6.39 7 1.26 Alma 55 1 1 1 1 2 13 15 8 10 3 6 6.04 6 0.67 Voyager 34 1 2 2 7 9 7 4 2 6 5.97 6 0.86 Sierra 72 1 4 6 7 8 13 16 11 6 7 5.93 6 0.82 Millennium 21 2 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 8 4.67 5 1.53 All Responses 536 4 9 12 22 24 65 69 110 117 104 8 6.67 7 0.30

View report with these selections across multiple years

Smaller Academic Libraries: Company loyalty (2017)

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 < '200001') (2017)

Loyalty to Company Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev OPALS 17 1 1 15 9 8.82 9 2.18 VERSO 14 1 1 2 5 5 8 7.57 8 2.14 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 32 1 1 5 2 3 4 16 9 7.44 9 0.00 WorldShare Management Services 57 2 2 1 1 6 5 12 15 13 8 6.88 7 1.19 Koha -- Independent 17 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 6 9 6.71 8 2.18 ALEPH 500 30 2 1 1 1 3 4 5 3 10 9 6.47 7 1.64 Alma 52 2 1 2 2 10 5 14 7 9 7 6.31 7 0.69 Horizon 15 1 1 2 3 2 4 2 8 6.27 7 2.07 Voyager 35 2 1 1 1 4 4 5 4 5 8 9 6.06 6 0.68 Sierra 73 5 3 3 3 6 11 9 16 10 7 7 5.56 6 0.94 Symphony 73 9 1 5 5 3 6 5 18 10 11 7 5.52 7 1.05 Millennium 21 4 2 2 2 2 4 3 2 0 4.24 5 1.31 All Responses 529 40 11 21 15 23 62 58 90 86 123 9 6.19 7 0.35

View report with these selections across multiple years

All Academic Libraries: General ILS Satisfaction (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How satisfied is the library with your current Integrated Library System (ILS)? (Library Type: Academic) (2017)

Satisfaction Score for ILS Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev OPALS 23 2 1 20 9 8.78 9 1.88 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 36 2 2 11 10 11 7 7.67 8 0.67 Koha -- Independent 28 1 1 3 7 6 10 9 7.57 8 1.13 VERSO 14 1 1 5 5 2 7 7.43 8 2.14 Library.Solution 12 1 1 1 2 3 4 9 7.42 8 2.60 Virtua 12 1 8 3 7 7.17 7 2.02 Alma 219 4 4 8 24 39 89 43 8 7 6.60 7 0.34 WorldShare Management Services 109 2 1 2 4 8 29 37 19 7 7 6.53 7 0.86 Symphony 141 2 8 7 8 15 25 40 25 11 7 6.21 7 0.42 Sierra 207 6 11 21 21 40 63 37 8 7 6.20 7 0.63 Horizon 28 2 3 2 5 1 6 5 4 7 6.07 7 1.32 ALEPH 500 82 2 2 2 3 8 15 17 19 13 1 7 5.73 6 0.55 Voyager 92 1 5 9 10 17 16 24 9 1 7 5.52 6 0.83 Millennium 60 3 1 5 5 5 7 13 12 5 4 6 5.32 6 1.16 All Responses 1185 7 6 36 50 78 125 208 347 220 108 7 6.39 7 0.26

View report with these selections across multiple years

All Academic Libraries: General ILS Functionality (2017)

top

Statistics related to the question: How complete is the functionality of this ILS relative to the needs of this library? (Library Type: Academic) (2017)

ILS Functionality Score Response Distribution Statistics Company Responses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mode Mean Median Std Dev OPALS 23 1 2 20 9 8.61 9 1.88 Library.Solution 12 1 1 3 4 3 8 7.42 8 2.60 Koha -- ByWater Solutions 36 2 5 12 8 9 7 7.42 7 0.67 Koha -- Independent 28 1 1 2 4 7 5 8 9 7.14 7 1.13 VERSO 14 2 3 2 5 2 8 7.14 8 2.14 Virtua 12 1 9 2 7 7.08 7 2.02 Alma 218 3 3 6 17 37 90 54 8 7 6.79 7 0.41 WorldShare Management Services 109 2 2 4 4 11 19 32 30 5 7 6.51 7 0.86 Sierra 205 6 12 13 33 37 53 39 12 7 6.23 7 0.56 Symphony 141 3 5 8 9 16 30 29 31 10 8 6.20 6 0.59 Horizon 28 4 3 1 3 5 4 6 2 8 5.71 6 1.13 Voyager 91 2 4 7 14 19 15 15 11 4 5 5.51 5 0.84 ALEPH 500 82 1 1 5 4 19 8 14 17 10 3 4 5.48 6 0.55 Millenniu