For library users the advantages of having a statewide centralised LMS include the ability to make interlibrary loans, access to a lot more resources than they would have if they were just using a single library service and being able to return items to any library within the system. Disadvantages include users being overwhelmed by a large catalogue and not knowing how to use it, eg not knowing how to use the refinements in the search options. Users may think that the discovery layer on the catalogue is the only place to search for resources when there may be more available which have been purchased locally so they are not included in that particular catalogue. There also may be less items on the physical shelves.

For country libraries, centralising the LMS may provide them access to a state of the art LMS which they would not have been able to afford otherwise. It would also take the pressure off their IT staff as they would not have sole responsibility of maintaining their catalogue and technical support would be readily available. The increase of materials in the library catalogue would be especially advantageous for rural users.

Economically, having a centralised LMS reduces system administration and staff training costs. Plus the state can benefit from the increased purchasing power and related discounts. Although courier costs would be higher as so many items are moved between libraries, this also creates a lot more manual handling of materials.

The major disadvantage to having a centralised LMS is that if it goes down the entire system stops, affecting everyone in the state. Library users would not be able to borrow, librarians would not be able to do their jobs, even the couriers would lose work. Plus there would be a lot of extra work to do once the system was back online.