Statistical Report for Millennium

2009 Survey Results 2008 Survey Results 2007 Survey Results
Product: Millennium Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction342 1 7 10 31 32 108 102 51 77.137
Company Satisfaction341 1 4 13 8 17 41 47 92 71 47 76.587
Support Satisfaction338 2 2 11 15 16 28 68 83 71 42 76.537
Support Improvement315 6 3 9 8 12 136 50 47 19 25 55.655
Company Loyalty339 14 10 12 15 21 42 28 55 59 83 96.337
Open Source Interest339 69 47 36 27 30 41 20 29 18 22 03.513

Considering new ILS350 4111.71%
Considering new Interface350 10830.86%
System Installed on time?350 30085.71%
Product: Millennium Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction294 5 7 10 14 37 85 100 36 87.087
Company Satisfaction293 4 1 12 14 15 25 45 84 63 30 76.437
Support Satisfaction291 2 4 7 11 14 35 43 88 64 23 76.447
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty287 7 6 13 10 13 28 27 61 68 54 86.537
Open Source Interest290 47 39 42 29 22 35 24 18 15 19 03.573

Considering new ILS302 258.28%
Considering new Interface302 10735.43%
System Installed on time?302 28193.05%
Product: Millennium Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction254 1 4 5 8 14 22 74 89 37 87.177
Company Satisfaction320 2 3 12 11 20 33 47 89 73 30 76.457
Support Satisfaction317 2 7 8 19 19 34 60 88 57 23 76.207
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty306 14 11 14 5 12 46 21 63 68 52 86.257
Open Source Interest321 72 34 59 28 33 38 18 12 10 17 03.062

Considering new ILS329 226.69%
Considering new Interface329 9629.18%
System Installed on time?329 10.30%


[...]is a consortium of very small to large libraries. The decision making is fraught. I am answering for myself and my very small library. Other directors have no idea what goes on on the front lines.

III's insistence on maintaining a closed architecture for their ILS is becoming more problematic as time goes on -- real interoperability remains severely limited. We are doing more work outside Milliennium - keeping our III database as the db of record but exporting data into other, more flexible systems for manipulation, combining with other data sources, and for analysis. We're beginning to look at replacements for some III's modules that aren't as tightly coupled into the ILS (WebBridge, ERM), and to think about what traditional ILS functions might be done in other systems as we have less need for inventory control and more need for management information and decision support.

the time for an ILS to throw in every tool/product they have into a complete ILS system is passing. Without such we look elsewhere. To include all products would probably have made as stay stick with the current vendor indefinetly.

We just love Millennium and Encore!!!! So easy to use and implement. We even have e-commerce now and are getting ready to set up patron self-registration and electronic ordering.

Migration/install services have been excellent. Technical support services have never been ideal, and have deteriorated badly in the past year. Software enhancement work has become quite slow, due possibly to substantial staff losses by the support vendor. LibLime is moving to a new LibLime Enterprise version which appears to be a fork in the Koha system. That is a serious concern to us.

We have Encore so users can have faceted searching or the standard webpac.

Innovative's ala carte pricing for services is outdated and needs revamping. Paying additional for a RSS feed out of the OPAC in this day and age is ridiculous. I find support quite good, but the business model needs to move into the 21st century.

The implementation of a public WorldCat Local-based service has had one significant benefit: it has made librarians focus much more closely on discovery system issues. With our ILS WebOPAC, we (as an organization) were basically on auto-pilot when it came to library search, not looking hard at what our users wanted, not assessing usage closely, etc. WorldCat Local has received mixed reviews among reference librarians, but library materials usage is up, and we are thinking harder about search and fulfillment systems.

The cost of our ILS is staggering in the current economic climate.

Our biggest concern with our Millennium System is the cost - there are many enhancements and modules we would like to consider but they are too expensive for us to consider at this time. We are very happy with the general functionality of our system and the service we recieve from the company behind it (III). It''s just that, as one staff member put it, we seem to be "driving a mercedes benz when we only have a Chevrolet budget".

III seems to get things done and has traditional library values at heart. Support and documentation is cluttered by a few generations of backwards compatibility. I'm not sure they have a response for the impending FOSS movement, but no one else does either.

Since our clientele are mainly interested in journal literature, our main focus has been to make sure electronic access to journals is prominent in both our catalog and in our databases. We have had some problems with Endeca not showing the current journal received, but this does seem to be sorting itself out. While the catalog is still useful for our patrons, it is the access via the databases that is most important.

As part of a consortium, the collective is looking at Open Source. Many of the members of the collective know that Open Source is not a panacea, but the library executives don't seem to understand this. Most of the directors are completely out of touch with the cost of doing business and think it should just be done cheaply as possible and that the users don't need sophistication.

Investigating adding Summon to Aquabrowser.

The main problem with the current provider of our library system, Innovative Interfaces, is that they are very expensive. The system is good and so is the support, but I am frustrated that whenever I want to extend the system or do something cool with it I am prevented from doing so. The company invariably then can provide me with a way of doing what I could do for cheap or free with an expensive price tag. It is of vital importance for libraries to have the freedom to innovate.

We are always keeping an eye on the open source solutions, but, like most public libraries, we do not have the operational budget (for staff) to support such a solution. So far, we are happy with our current ILS.

Very happy with the company, software and service. We have no plans to move.

Don't have the expertise in house to support open source ILS.

[...] is a high volume transaction system that utilizes every feature of a mature ILS.

Unfortunately recently locked into an expensive upgrade under a parting library adminitration. Would definitely consider open source next time around (budgetary concerns being a prime factor).

Main issue: waiting to see how Summon vs. Innovative's work on Research Pro vs. Worldcat Local plays out

I think we would look more closely at open Source if we had the personnel and the time. Because we are part of a consortium our hands are tied.

Many of the other [...] libraries that have been involved in the statewide [...] catalog are looking for new systems -- budgetary cuts at the state have forced the group to start looking, in separate library-type units rather than as a whole.

Three networks in Massachusetts [...] ] are in a consortia to implement Open Source in the next two years.

[...] handles customer service requests with III, so I have no direct contact with III for that. However, I am affected by the glacial pace of development. [...] is currently switching to RFID, and III's minimal support for this technology is frustrating, especially considering that we bent over backwards to find an RFID vendor who had the most experience working with III. Also frustrating is that each software release seems to break several customizations that we make use of, and it can take a month or more to discover those and then get it fixed. Two other networks in Mass. (MVLC and NOBLE) are migrating to Evergreen soon, and MLN will follow their progress closely. For now, [...] has probably settled on III's Encore as the new "search interface"/discovery platform because of live integration with catalog database -- most other products require an overnight update process which would be awkward. Where funding for Encore will come from is unclear, however, since it is very expensive and these are lean times in [...], so [...] may not be able to implement this software soon.

[...] is planning to move away from our current INNO-centric ILS, although it is likely to be several years before this is completed. Whatever direction they take is going to determine what we and the other members do.

We are not considering LibLime for potential Koha support any longer, now that they appear to be branching the code. We also are less likely to migrate to Koha at all, since the latest community upgrade (3.2) doesn't have planned features (like Course Reserves) which LibLime essentially withdrew from the community.

Millennium is a better product for our staff than for our patrons, so we are creating a replacement online catalog using Drupal. We are not considering a move away from Millennium at this time, but would not consider another closed-source ILS. Very recent versions of Evergreen and Koha seem to be closing the gap quickly, so they will be likely contenders for a future move away from Millennium.

The search interface question is a bit misleading. We have had a search interface that is separate form the ILS for a few years now - Encore - and we are quite happy with it. the customer support question is also a bit misleading. The question asks about increase or decrease in customer support quality. We have received consistantly good support from Innovative and that has not changed in the last year.

library invested new money in system this academic year so unlikely will be changing anytime soon

No money in [...], so no plans to change anything for awhile. Even seed money to save money is almost non-existent.

In my opinion, the only factor that would drive us to open source would be cost-savings. The functionality is there with our current ILS, but the cost for add-on products and maintenance is very expensive. We are in a wait-and-see mode with open source.

ILS vendor not necessarily responsive to customer needs; seems to have their own agenda on improvements and enhancements to services and products, often cherry picking for the quick and easy solution rather than meaningful and desired by their customers

We are in the process of hiring staff with more technology expertise than we have ever had - our nod to the fact that we are behind our our customers' expectation of where we should be. This has the potential of changing both our ILS, links to it, and our electronic collection. We are soon tripling our IT staff.

Customer support from Innovative's help desk and support staff has consistently been very good for a number of years. My impression is that the company has adequate support staff to handle help desk inquiries in an acceptable amount of time.

We are part of a consortium of public libraries in [...] that have formed the [...], which centralizes automation services for the members. Therefore, our experience with the vendor of our ILS is indirect.

Changes in the open source ILS marketplace are worth a comment. One has the choice of "free like free kittens" where you invest in staff or a paid support model so the cost of an open source ILS can be the same or more than a commercial product.

We just moved to Worldcat Local for discovery interface.

Some of our dissatisfaction with our current system stems from being part of a cooperative and being unable to implement the technologies and features we would like to be able to offer to our patrons, due to resistance from the other cooperative members.

In our local authority I think that it would be difficult to implement an open source ILS as there is no experience of large scale open source projects here. In fact it is more and more difficult to get internal support for our existing SUN hardware as the authority is Microsoft certified and generally only supports Microsoft servers.

Although we have only had Millennium for just a year. We are enjoying using the system alhtough we do feel there is much more to learn about it

We are part of network and the network staff takes care of most of the interactions with III. Therefore, my answers are a little suspect, because we don't generally deal with III directly at our library. Also, we're just beginning to explore the open source concept and would probably try the program used down in Georgia, the name of which I cannot remember for the life of me.

I believe that as much money as we spend on the current ILS, they should provide us with a more flexible and up to date search interface rather than charging an additional fee. Also, though we are not currently considering aquiring a different interface, we do like Aquabrowser and will be looking at it and others similar to it in the future.

We have recently passed the consideration stage for Encore and Research Pro and are currently integrating into Library website.

[...] is our consortium and received a grant to develop a new state wide system. They have selected Evergreen as the basis for the ILS. We depend on [...] for customer service and do not deal directly with Millennium.

Still don't feel that Open Source is ready for Prime Time, at least not for our purposes. But major ILS vendors leave so much to be desired, there is a strong incentive to find another solution.

Before we considered open source I would think we would have to invest in more staff to administer the product

[...], [...], and [...] has received a grant to implement an open source ILS system. The Evergreen system is our choice as other models are not seen as robust enough to meet our needs.

While the promise of open source ILS' and the various APIs available is promising, we just don't have the staff (time or training) to undertake something like that. Our county IT department doesn't even have a software developer/programmer person on staff, mainly people with more basic tech support skills or just focused on networks/systems (not creative development).

Millennium is a bad system for a small libraries

After 9 years we have grown a huge number of business processes built around the sufficiencies/deficiencies of Innopac which make it hard to move. It is a relatively mature product in that is has user interfaces for almost everything on the back end, unlike the koha and evergreen.

Our ILS works well enough but is too expensive.

Our ILS works well enough but is too expensive.

III's Help desk staff are very good to work with, but some calls take a very long time to resolve.

We are a member of the [...] consortium. [...] is anticipating with 2 other consortia in developing Evergreen for implementation in all three networks.

Our library is already using Encore as our discovery layer and has replaced the classic catalog's webpac with it. The Integrated Library System is more distributed now with the traditional catalog as the database, a separate discover platform, another system for archives, a service for article linking and another for article searching. Integration takes on a new meaning.

We are also interested to see: whether Libraries think OCLC's WorldCat Local makes much sense for medium size academic libraries, how well the new SkyRiver source of Bib. records works, and what other Open Source options will become viable considerations. We worry a little about OCLC's dominance and non-profit status. Regional OCLC membership is also costly. Yet, we also worry a little about the effects of Google (Google Books, etc) and how traditional libraries may be forced to accomodate the effects of the technology behemoths.

We are migrating because the Millennium system we are now running has lost its state funding. We are looking first at III and then at other systems.

Would consider open source ILS only if current vendor added as a option.

Support & training can vary greatly. Sometimes response is quick and problem is solved; other times no word about what is being done if anything.

Current system installed in 1992 so answer to question (For the most recent ILS implemented in your library, was the system installed and put into production on schedule according to the terms of your contract?) is not reflective of current Innovative set ups.

We care not CONSIDERING a search interface because we already have one. We are satisfied with Innovative's ILMS and the support - although we wish we could do more modifications on our end. Our dissatisfaction lies with the IR Sypmposia and it sometimes colors our resonse to the companuy as a whole.

We are part of a consortium with the U[...]s. We are very pleased with arrangement

Some components of our current system are already undergoing change at the statewide level, others are under consideration.

We have implemented an open-source discovery layer to our collection data using a modified version of Scriblio, which is an exciting development.

These answers are somewhat mixed. Some answers apply solely to III Millennium. Others apply to [...]. We belong to an 80+ member shared system supervised by [...], and [...]subsidized. Due to state budget difficulties it will no longer be subsidized and all 80 libraries will need to find an alternate.

We are looking at outside vendors for future add-ons to our ILS. We want to be able to bring new add-on modules with us if we migrate to an open-source ILS.

We're happy with our ILS, and Innovative has been very responsive to our requests for service. My only issue with them is that they aren't very thorough when you discuss new products with them. There's way too much "canned" sales pitch and not enough explanation about the details of how the new products overlap with the current products. We've worked with the same Sales Rep for a couple of years, and my feeling is that he should be more aware of our set up and how products will integrate, etc. Instead of giving us detailed information during demos, or providing us with indepth documentation, they give us a broad overview of how the new features work. It's extremely frustrating!

We are being forced to move to an open source ILS next year because our Millennium subscription was subsidized by the [...]. Staying with III is not an option right now. Our two-county public library district is trying to raise the money to send out an RFP to ILS vendors (not open source) in the near future. I am hoping that we will be able to migrate to whatever the district purchases. At this point it is all very up in the air.

Our support comes from [...], and we are pleased with their support. Millenium iii does not freely give of its support.

We are a long time Innovative user. Most recently we have been purchasing some new products - I must admit that we are less than impressed with the lack of flexibility and customization available in such products. Disappointing in light of what is available out there.

We believe Innovative Interfaces Inc. is committed to staying on the cutting edge of automated library services, and we are very happy with the robustness of their solutions and the timeliness in which they deliver these solutions.

We are greatly interested in open source ILS's -- we're not desparately unhappy with III, but we'd like a lot more freedom and flexibility in our presentation than we believe III gives us. We are uncertain right now how much additional expertise an OS ILS will involve (coders, programmers, etc.) so we are not moving quickly or seriously on this -- but we are beginning to hear notes of buy-in to the idea of an OS ILS.

Migrating to new ILS is not voluntary. [...] will no longer support our ILS system so we need to find something comparable and affordable to Millennium.

Customer Support, in our brief experience, has been okay. We're not observing either improvement or decline, so I've left the question without a response. Re: open source: we use open source wherever it makes sense. One of the biggest drawbacks of Millennium is that it still has so many "features" typical of a 1970s-era ILS. Undoubtedly this reflects the development path used by III. At the systems level (as in systems staff who work with Millennium), we frequently find those features problematic and frustrating. Nonetheless, Millennium offers many benefits, including a robust reporting capability, and staff and users generally are satisfied with the system. At this time, we are not looking to migrate to an open source ILS.

Innovative Interfaces has gotten very slow about fixing bugs.

In 2009 this library moved to Book Systems' web-based program called Atriuum. This move was made so all seven public libraries in this county could go to the same automation system. We are very pleased with Atriuum. However, there are three changes that we are waiting for. Book Systems is supposed to be addressing these areas for future upgrades. 1. Cataloging: access OCLC from Atriuum's Quick Cataloging instead of having to use secondary product called eZcat. 2. Circulation: currently cannot link the records of family members. We want to link all the members of a family together. 3. Circulation: currently cannot have separate circulation policies for the individual members of our system. We are public libraries and each library needs to tailor its policies to its community.

We are part of the main university ILS system and we are only adding our print records to the system. We are working with Aquabrowser and Serials Solutions to deal with all of our digital materials (about 500,000 records) at this point.

The ILS remains an important tool for the library. We are actually expanding our catalog a great deal this year by using it to track Faculty Scholarship. We hope to have something to showcase by the summer of 2010. I content that while not perfect, these systems can do more than we are asking them to do!

The current plan is to keep our Millennium ILS and search interface, but to also send catalog data to Collective Access for single web searching across our archives, photo and artifact collections. Millennium has been very stable for us. We haven't needed customer service very much. The IUG discussion group and list archives make up for most gaps in the documentation.

Our go-live date to Millennium was [...], so we haven't had enough experience yet to answer helpfully some of the above questions. For example, we just moved to the III HelpDesk from their Implementation Team for support issues. Cinda Romuldietz

State of [...] is looking to replicate the Georgia model to some degree. Several Millennium libraries in the surrounding area are looking to migrate away from III. For us, III has fallen down in returning value for high yearly maintenance costs. Minor improvements and sporadic tech support calls don't justify the very high cost we are paying for a system that is not even full featured, i.e. no Encore, spell check, RSS, patron reviews, etc.

We belong to a very large consortium who handles all of the contact with III so most of the above questions are irrelevant, although, we have participated in the vendor selection process.

We implemented Encore in the last year.