Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Statistical Report for Millennium

2011 Survey Results 2010 Survey Results 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 Satisfaction454 7 2 4 10 13 37 57 141 128 55 76.887
Company Satisfaction453 6 6 16 16 22 49 58 111 122 47 86.507
Support Satisfaction451 5 8 5 9 30 52 68 114 115 45 86.557
Support Improvement437 4 5 8 14 40 178 61 56 50 21 55.635
Company Loyalty452 13 5 16 18 24 52 50 79 93 102 96.557
Open Source Interest447 100 48 64 32 35 52 37 30 21 28 03.413

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS458 14331.22%
Considering new Interface458 11124.24%
System Installed on time?458 42091.70%
Product: Millennium Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction388 1 2 4 8 12 21 40 124 121 55 77.117
Company Satisfaction387 3 4 13 8 19 30 61 106 99 44 76.667
Support Satisfaction386 1 4 5 18 21 30 61 106 95 45 76.677
Support Improvement381 4 4 6 15 39 146 38 59 40 30 55.725
Company Loyalty383 19 11 11 13 17 40 39 75 69 89 96.407
Open Source Interest383 86 35 53 33 27 48 23 28 19 31 03.533

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS395 7418.73%
Considering new Interface395 14436.46%
System Installed on time?395 36391.90%
Average Collection size: 780971
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

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS350 4111.71%
Considering new Interface350 10931.14%
System Installed on time?350 30186.00%
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

CategoryTotalYespercent
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

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

Comments

we just signed on with Innovative to be an early adopter of their new system, Sierra. like others, we are hoping that this brings the possibility of increased functionality. (Type: Academic)

Innovative interfaces has been notified that [...] is leaving... In addition [...] (Implementation Jan 2012) and [...] (Installed May 2011) are invloved in this joint project. We were suppose to come up in Jan. but enhaced functionality funded by [...] would not be available until Spring 2012. (Type: Academic)

The only thing we don't like about our ILS is that it is TOO EXPENSIVE. (Type: Academic)

[...] will be implementing Innovative Interfaces' new ILS, Sierra, in late 2011. We plan to migrate from Millennium to Sierra in fall 2012. (Type: Academic)

We recently entered into a consortium with two other libraries as a pilot project for a larger one-card system. We expect other libraries to join this consortium as funding becomes available. (Type: Public)

As I understand it, the Innovative system was designed for academic libraries, not a consortium of stand-alones with varying loan rules and other peculiarities. III insists that they are just right for us. We are a large group and pay an enormous amount of money for this product and get bupkas back. (Type: Public)

[...] will be a development partner for III's Sierra platform. (Type: Law)

We will strongly consider moving to Innovative Sierra but we have not signed on as of yet. (Type: Consortium)

While we are looking at other options, we cannot migrate to any system that does not have an automatic storage and retrieval (ASRS) interface. Innovative's ASRS interface works very well. (Type: Academic)

We migrated two months ago, and issues are being solved. In another six months, evaluation would be more meaningful. (Type: Public)

We are a member of a consortium that is considering migrating to a shared Next Generation Catalog system (Type: Academic)

the question that refers to the discovery layer - the answer is really "maybe" rather than a yes or no. It will all depend on if we go with another ILS and what that system has for a search interface. (Type: Academic)

The university is part of an 8 library consortium using III and investigating alternatives over the next 2 years. (Type: Academic)

We are carefully monitoring the ILS market for further developments in web-scale and/or open access ILS systems [OCLC's WebScale; Kuali-Ole; Serials Solutions]. None of these is yet in a stage where we could reasonably consider migrating from our current ILS, but we anticipate within the next 3-5 years, one or two of these will emerge as a serious contender. (Type: Academic)

Most vendors have trended away from charging for each license and requring licenses for multiple staff to use the system and most systems include texting, email and other common functions as part of the basic system, but Innovative does not do either of these so it is likely given its costs that we will migrate elsewhere. (Type: Public)

We are an early adopter for Sierra and should be live by second quarter 2012. (Type: Academic)

Tough times for all libraries. We might consider open source if we had someone on staff with the knowledge to maintain and upgrade the product; I'm unconvinced open source vendors can provide the services they say they can. (Type: Public)

a few years left in our contract so not really looking at anything else right now but are intrigued by the Sierra platform. (Type: Academic)

We are a development library for Sierra, the new Innovative ILS. (Type: Academic)

We are members of a consortium and not the decision makers. As such we have no direct experience with Innovative support. (Type: Public)

We migrated from a Local Innovative (turn-key) system to an INNovative-Hosted server in June 2011. Some migration issues were not handled such as timely notification of our new IP address / URL. We have some concerns regarding downtime because of loss of local control over the network. Otherwise III's handling of the migration went smoothly. (Type: Academic)

We are glad we did not pursue federated searching. It was a flash in the pan. (Type: Theology)

Our current LMS is very expensive to run and that is a major factor we would consider if we were consider an alternative. (Type: Academic)

We are in the middle of the implementation of the Millennium and there for the questions is a little bit difficult to answer. The plan is that we should be up and running in the end of the December 2011. (Type: Academic)

We are pleased with the concept behind Sierra, but not about the cost. This is prompting us to reconsider open source options, but we are not very far in this consideration. (Type: Academic)

Open source would be considered if we were staffed differently, but staffing at [... ]is very lean. (Type: Academic)

Overall satisfaction with III is very high with one exception. We purchased a module to interface with our university finance system and it does not function. III shrugged their collective shoulders and just said "well we can refund your money if you want". We just want the interface to work properly. (Type: Academic)

We are looking to see what our options our in respect to ILS, and Discovery Platforms available. The biggest driver of this is cost. We pay a lot of money to Innovative Interfaces, Inc. evey year. At this point I am against open source due to my experiences with the higher cost of support or lack of support. At this point I would not say we are considering changing we are just checking our options. (Type: Academic)

We have put our tech dollars into new staff with tech expertise that we did not previously have. What a wonderful ROI that has been for us! (Type: Special)

The[...] is merging with the 3 universities of [...] to create the [...] . Actually the 4 universities have 3 different ILS. We rapidly need to have the same one. (Type: )

The amount of money our library spends on maintaining our ILS is unsustainable for the future. If we are to continue with our vendor into the future, our vendor will need to work with us to control costs and save money. (Type: Academic)

We have recently signed an agreement to move from Innovative's Millennium product to their Sierra product. (Type: Public)

We have been asked to move to Sierra - III's new platform - but have yet to commit. The ILS is doing just about everything we want it to do and I am not convinced that the added cost will yield any great results. That being said, I have been disappointed with the lack of development of Millennium over the past few years. It is clear to me that Encore and Sierra are the development priorities for the company and that if you have Millennium, it is fundamentally at EOL. (Type: Business)

We're going to be upgrading from Millennium to Sierra in the summer. (Type: Academic)

The high cost and unresponsiveness from the sales department Is what drove us away from Innovative. OCLC offered an affordable solution at one simple price. (Type: Special)

While we are not yet actively planning a migration, we are closely watching the development of III's Sierra product and OCLC's Web Management Services. The promise (open architecture) and potential (leveraging the nework) of each product is exciting, but it is too early to tell if either will deliver the functionality at a cost that is sustainable for libraries. We are also keeping an eye on open source solutions to see if dollars are better reallocated to that effort. (Type: Consortium)

We're moving to Evergreen in January. (Type: Public)

"How likely is it that this library would consider implementing an open source ILS?" Someday, sure we'd consider it. Today, no, since we continue to hear that the open-source systems out there just don't have the features that many libraries want, plus we're not looking to change systems. (Type: Public)

Your question about the support getting better or worse does not provide for answering that it was good all along. We are very satisfied with their responsiveness. We have every expectation that we will move to Sierra -- so that is our version of "open source". The biggest problem I perceive with Encore is the resistance of "old school" academic reference librarians who choose to disparage the "discovery" approach to information gathering. (Type: Academic)

We are part of a consortium that shares the same ILS platform. The consortium decided in the last few months to become an early adopter of Sierra when it is released. I do not enjoy working with III, but all my support issues go to the consortium, and they deal with III. The consortium responds quickly for the most part. An open ILS is a nice idea but unfortunately would not work in the consortial environment. (Type: Academic)

Start up on Innovative was not as smooth as I would have hoped. Many initial setup decisions would have benefited from better advise from the trainer/documentation. Also, the configuration of searching does not limit as well within our consortia environment as anticipated. (Type: Academic)

This survey is largely not applicable as our contract with Innovative ended this spring and we are working towards the consortium wide switch to the open-source ILS Evergreen (Type: Public)

Although I do not know much about library systems, Millenium is an old system that came about from another old system, sometimes it feels like I am still working with DOS. I believe its time to move forward with a modern, user friendly, and not so combobulated. (Type: Public)

Significant factors in our discussion of a new ILS/Discovery service include: subscription cost, ability to upload our current print holdings, time needed to train staff on the new system, desired "next generation catalog" factors such as reviewing/sharing/citing items, faceting, mobile interface, etc. (Type: Academic)

We are always open to open source options. I really like some of the open source discovery services. However, the biggest drawback is the time and personal commitment. (Type: Academic)

I believe that Innovative Interfaces has improved, as a company, in the last year. Its new President and changed management team assert that they are moving beyond the highly-proprietary (from technical and business standpoints) Millennium system to a more open system with the Sierra platform. One of the frustrating things about Millennium is Innovative's tendency to productize everything, such as access to Millennium data by an external system. I am concerned, though, about Innovative's ability to move from the current business model. For example, III is emphasizing 100% Millennium compatibility in Sierra. How much of the existing business model will be carried over to Sierra as well? But, in summary, even if there are unanswered questions, I believe the changes in the past year have many positives for Millennium libraries like mine. (Type: Academic)

Although III has announced a new ILS platform, Sierra, we have not yet decided when/if we will implement at this point. (Type: Law)

Millennium is a good product if one wishes to buy their ILS cafeteria style. It makes the overall cost lower by picking and choosing what you want. However, as you discover tasks and procedures you wish to accomplish, the cafeteria approach leaves gaps in the ability to complete the tasks and procedures. There becomes an additional cost after the fact to get the functionality desired. (Type: Public)

The likelihood of using open source is more predicated on the willingness (low) of our parent organization. (Type: Public)

Re OS product. Our current director is keen to look at OS products but implementing a new system is big so easier to stay with the current product. (Type: Academic)

One of the main issues we have with Innovative is their tendency to charge too much for adding conventional functionality, such as new load profiles and scopes, so we go without. The annual maintenance costs and costs for new products are also quite high and this will be a factor when we consider whether to stick with them for the long run or move to another system. (Type: Public)

We recently purchased and installed the Encore discovery platform. We've been quite used to having a solid, reliable system that is kind of a workhorse ... it just chugs along. Encore, alas, has not been particularly stable and is intermittently not working - and so we have become less happy because of this. Hopefully this is a temporary situation but is certainly colouring my responses right now. (Type: Public)

We just moved to a hosted version of our ILS in November 2011 (Type: Academic)

We currently have 3 libraries with automated checkin/sorting capability and plan to add more in the future (Type: Public)

My institution, a museum, is researching discovery interfaces as well as collection management products that would provide access to and improve our management of our museum artifacts. Open source products are under consideration. However, no attempt is being made to require that a new museum system replicate specifically library functionalities such as circulation, serials, or MARC cataloging. It has not yet been decided whether to include library holdings in the discovery interface. (Type: Museum)

We use III products as the ILMS base, but make use of Ex Libris' SFX, bX and Primo services on top. (Type: Academic)

Innovative's pricing structure has become increasingly burdensome over the years. (Type: Academic)

Endeca is installed as our current Discovery layer, we're considering other interfaces that would also provide article-level discovery. With the advent of that new level of discovery, Endeca may be dismantled. (Type: Academic)

We have already signed up as an early adopter of Sierra. I have to say that I am really impressed by Innovative's new push to be more open. I feel that the Sierra product will be able to offer some of the best features of open source without the pitfalls of open source. We have realized that more and more we want the ILS to be more than just a good nventory managermnet system. We want the ILS to function as a customer relationship managment system too. (Type: Public)

Have been an Innovative customer since 1997. Software support has been overall delivered in a timely manner. Upgrades have always been easy to do and rarely create issues and if they do Innovative is quick to respond. The company has been responsive to our needs. (Type: Academic)

The user interface of this ILS is quite outdated, a Java desktop with no "nice" touches. Also, it doesn't let you upload graphic files such as cover scans or user headshots to better represent the collection and its users. (Type: Public)

The closed, proprietary nature of Millennium is becoming increasingly difficult to justify to the University. Sierra should address that, but we aren't in a position to be early adopters and will probably take the opportunity to do a thorough review of the options before changing from Millennium. An open source option will be considered but probably isn't that likely to be a serious contender. (Type: Academic)

Millennium functions at an acceptable level, but support and costs make us unlikely to consider migrating to Sierra unless consortia opportunities force our hand. Our organization is frustrated by the consistent "we can do that, but it will cost you more" attitude of Innovative. (Type: Public)

We are part of a state consortium, so it is difficult to comment on support. We get fantastic support from [...], but I know that as a user, we have had a number of Millennium 'freezes' and issues in the last 3 months especially, as have other members of the consortium. I know the State is working on resolving this. On that basis, I ranked the support as being worse than in the past, as we have had better luck with Millennium in the past. (Type: Public)

We are satisfied with our ILS however development seems to often be put into new products or modules which we would have to purchase in order to get the new functionality. While that is fine for some things we feel that some of these improvements should be delievered to current customers rather than always making them pay. The costs of many of these new modules is beyond our ability to pay. We used to feel very current with our ILS but it now seems as if much of the functionality is passing us by because we cannot afford it. We still feel very satisfied with our our ILS - it works well, we rarely have any downtime, it has interfaced well with our new RFID setup and support is usually pretty good although we do have to push sometimes on our open calls. (Type: Public)

With Millennium fund accounting updates are not real time. With Millennium cannot move records (holds, items) between bibs. (Type: Public)

We are aware that Innovative are developing a new system, Sierra, which we will be tracking. (Type: Academic)

We are starting to question whether Innovative is capable of moving its ILS and related products forward in a competent manner. Also, we need to be better able to control our own data. (Type: Public)

We are locked in to Innovative primarily due to [...] association with it. We will not be likely to make a change, even though we are generally not satisfied with the product, and find the cost quite high. Innovative has moved forward with their new Sierra system, which, if considerably better than Millennium, will certainly benefit us. We are signed on as early-adopters of Sierra for next year when it is released. (Type: Academic)

Interested to watch Sierra but... cautious about III's claims of openness & data accessibility. (Type: Academic)

We were very close to adopting an Open Source product using Equinox but the [...] agreed to postpone the decision until next year. I was relieved by this because I felt we were rushing into something. At present there is not another library in Virginia (to my knowledge) that is using Open Source. Lyrasis has inaugurated an Open Source Solutions service which may be useful in making this decision. I would also like to learn more about discovery interface and Next-generation catalogs. (Type: Public)

[...] did an RFP for ILS in 2011, and decided to make the most of Millennium for 2 years. None of the current ILS products seemed like a substantial improvement, worth the time and money to migrate. We will buy a $100k worth of Millennium products (Reporter is the big-ticket item) in 2012, but keep the Sierra option on hold until it looks more real for consortia. Meanwhile we have more interesting challenges to tackle with ebooks, and figure the ILS "plumbing" is good enough. (Type: Consortium)

Staff size is too small for open source ILS - need something we can just "turn on" and use (Type: Academic)

We are a small library struggling to keep up with the rising costs of Millenium. We need to upgrade our OPAC look and feel but we cannot afford to do so with our current system. We like the back end of Millenium but we realize that we are not getting the most for our money. (Type: Academic)

We were slated to migrate to Evergreen in October 2011. That date was pushed back to December 2011 and again postponed to "Spring 2012". Most of the delay is due to development of open-source Evergreen functions. Staff is generally happy with Millennium and the migration to Evergreen is received with little enthusiasm. We recognize the benefits to the consortium, and though we also are thankful for the primarily financial benefits, we have concerns about the lack of some basic functionality. (Type: Public)

Very displeased and frustrated with the services and ILS of Innovative, especially considering how much we pay. (Type: Academic)

VuFind and Primo were just brought up in early January 2012. (Type: )

ILS