Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Statistical Report for Millennium

2012 Survey Results 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 Satisfaction393 2 3 13 7 19 29 64 118 97 41 76.687
Company Satisfaction389 2 7 15 14 24 32 65 103 85 42 76.447
Support Satisfaction385 3 8 16 13 17 34 78 96 76 44 76.397
Support Improvement381 10 4 7 19 37 140 55 47 39 23 55.515
Company Loyalty388 17 7 14 13 16 39 44 71 80 87 96.497
Open Source Interest385 105 49 45 33 35 34 32 19 15 18 03.002

Considering new ILS399 16942.36%
Considering new Interface399 10025.06%
System Installed on time?399 35989.97%
Average Collection size: 868588
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

Considering new ILS458 14331.22%
Considering new Interface458 11124.24%
System Installed on time?458 42091.70%
Average Collection size: 859254
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

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

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

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 Satisfaction253 1 4 5 8 14 22 74 88 37 87.167
Company Satisfaction319 2 3 12 11 20 33 47 88 73 30 76.457
Support Satisfaction316 2 7 8 19 19 34 60 87 57 23 76.207
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty305 14 11 14 5 12 46 21 63 67 52 86.247
Open Source Interest320 72 34 58 28 33 38 18 12 10 17 03.072

Considering new ILS328 226.71%
Considering new Interface328 9629.27%
System Installed on time?328 10.30%


We have signed with Innovative and will be migrating to Sierra in Q2 2013. We will be looking at discovery layers for the next fiscal year. (Type: Theology)

- (Type: Medical)

- (Type: Academic)

Our consortium is currently working with a consultant to create an RFP. (Type: Public)

We plan to migrate to the Sierra ILS in 2014. Many of the major issues regarding the Millennium ILS have been addressed in Sierra. (Type: Consortium)

We will be migrating to Sierra in May 2013 (Type: Academic)

[...] we will be upgrading to the Sierra ILS in early 2013. [...] is our proxy for dealing with III, so we have little input regarding III's customer service or implementation efficiency. (Type: Academic)

We are part of a consortium; we wouldn't be able to afford an independent implementation of this software otherwise. We are so small that we're likely to do whatever our consortium does. (Type: Academic)

For academic library - the online catalog is just a target. It's days of BEING the core of the Library's online presence are diminishing. (Type: Academic)

- (Type: Public)

Is the "approximate number of items in the library's collection" strictly books? That is what I answered, however we have access to far more. (Type: Academic)

We will be migrating to Alma in 2013 (Type: Academic)

Some concerns about open source ILS products: we are a small community college library. We do not have any programming or development staff available. Reserve textbook circulation is a significant and complicated part of our library circulation. I wonder how well open source ILS products would work for a small academic library such as ours, with very limited resources. We have learned from other open source products that free is not always free or, you get what you pay for. (Type: Academic)

- (Type: Law)

I have some concern that the investment by 2 equity firms, combined with the launch of the new LMS Sierra, has led to III becoming simultaneously over-extended and losing direction. (Type: Academic)

We feel that our current ILS is not well-optimized for current needs and tools as it has a quite clunky java-based interface and its OPAC doesn't offer much in the way of sharing cappabilites and information on the items listed in the catalog besides the catalographic record itself (Type: Public)

We have not moved over to Sierra yet and do not have the money to do so. We want to see what it truly offers before making the investment. (Type: Business)

We will be moving to a hosted environment in December. (Type: Academic)

- (Type: Academic)

as part of [...] , much of our options are choices about an ILS are dictated by our consortium. (Type: Academic)

We have already evaluated and rejected Encore, EBSCO Discovery System, and OCLC World Cat Local as discovery tools. We have already evaluated and rejected OCLC Web Management System as our next ILS. (Type: Academic)

We are hopeful that Sierra will give us better access to our data and allow for more in-house development. (Type: Public)

We're pretty fed up with iii right now but a new ILS is not in our immediate budget. We'll dump them as soon as it's feasible. The product is fine but the customer service is not good at all. (Type: Public)

Disappointed with 1990's interface and functionality + pricey cafeteria style add-ons for basic functionalities that 'come with' other ILS systems. Support for unique needs of consortium members not available in software or III staff expertise. Overall rating for support is poor -- requests languish and response is often page number to convoluted and incomplete documentation which has already been thoroughly studied prior to crying uncle and submitting request for help. (Type: Public)

The current system has been recently acquired and it is in the implementation/installation process. More concrete feedback about the ILS will be available during the 2nd quarter of 2013. (Type: Special)

The "number of items" includes our electronic books and streaming videos, which have to be included at this point. Our number of traditional, physical items is about half that. (Type: Academic)

Difficult to respond to some of these quesions as many of the decision respetive to the ILS are takenby the [...] library administration and as an integrated library are accepted by us automatically and applied to our library (Type: Academic)

Items in collection - 25,016 is number of physical items and OWNED ebooks. There is an additional 75,000 (approx) in the catalog of subscribed ebooks. We are not currently investigating a new ILS as we have a few years on our contract when the time comes we will consider other options. (Type: Academic)

Our library is in a museum setting. Our ILS does an excellent job of meeting our needs as a library. We are exploring better integration with the museum side of our institution. (Type: Museum)

We aren't just considering Sierra, we've signed up for it and are scheduled to go live in Nov 2013 (long lead time at our suggestion to fit in with end of NZ academic year). Our rating for satisfaction with Millennium has been dropping the last few years as open access to the system for APIs becomes more important. III's proprietary APIs are ridiculously expensive so we don't use them. (Type: Academic)

This ILS vendor charges too much for systems upgrades and additional modules (Type: Academic)

The consortium chose to change ILS vendors due primarily to cost and customer service. Innovative did not seem to be as willing to work with us as Auto-Graphics has been. What's more, we could not possibly afford the variety of resources offerred by Auto-Graphics from Innovative. (Type: Academic)

Innovative Interfaces' support for Millennium has suffered while they are focused on rolling out Sierra (Type: Academic)

displeasure with III has to do with the expense of the system. When first implemented, the library could not afford all the modules, and so we have limited functionality. It seems that anything we'd like to add costs $5,000 or more. It was not meant for a small library, and the administrator who selected it did not take that into consideration. We are now considering joining a state consortium, which is in the process of choosing a new ILS. This will save us tens of thousands of dollars each year. (Type: Academic)

Is it possible to disclose a list of libraries or consortia who have implemented open source discovery layers including those which have built-in or custom features such as a built-in hold feature to request items from other libraries;... Is there a library who's created a Summon type product via open source? Who, where, how? Thank you. (Type: Consortium)

We are still using Millennium. We are partners with the[...] who will be switching to Sierra in 2013 (Type: Academic)

Choosing an ILS is a consoria issue. Several options have been considered but actual companies I am not sure of. I feel there are more things available that we are not aware of but I can't be sure as access is limited to the provider and I do understand why. (Type: Public)

Our collections, including monographs, are primarily online. Integrating online resources into ILS still poses some challenges. (Type: Academic)

- (Type: Public)

Innovative should come outright at the end of the year to list products that they are charging maintenance even if they are not being used anymore such as 1:" webpac, 2) z39.50. etc. instead of waiting for the client to raise the issue. They should also be willing to issue credit when installation gets delayed for some of the interfaces instead of charging the same full amount ex. : databases interfaces for Synergy were not put in place as expected and was only taken care of after client follow-up. But no credit issued for the amount of time the interfaces to databases were not sued because they were not yet in place. (Type: Academic)

- (Type: Public)

As part of a consortium, we will do what the group votes to do. (Type: Public)

- (Type: Consortium)

We are migrating to Sierra on Dec 12th. So, my answers are for millennium. (Type: Public)

We would have supported open source products if the consortium had been interested in putting the technical resources toward developing, maintaining and enhancing the ILS product. The decision was made to purchase a hosted ILS and focus resources on developing/supporting other digital access projects within the consortium. (Type: Academic)

Decisions are made at the consortium level. (Type: Public)

We are committed to migrate to Sierra. (Type: Public)

We are part of a consortium of 9 [...] libraries that use III Millenium. Our server is hosted by III, and III also supplies a systems librarian (an "Application Management Coordinator") to handle system configuration issues. This has been a very good arrangement, esp. since many of our libraries are smaller and don't have the expertise to manage the system. (Type: Academic)

Implementing Innovative's Sierra plateform in 2013 (Type: Academic)

Implementing Sierra (from Innovative) in 2013 (Type: Academic)

OCLC's WMS isn't quite as mature as we'd hoped it would be by now, but I'm very interested in OCLCs ILS services because they are non-profit. Alma is too big of a change right now. We invested a lot of effort in Verde and were told by Ex Libis that we'd have the ER portion of Alma as a Verde upgrade. Then they changed their minds and said (early 2012) it wasn't possible to separate the ER portion so we would have to transition to Alma. We weren't prepared to adopt a new ILS at that point, but now feel pressure to do so since Verde has no reasonable replacement other than investing in Alma, and we'd like to integrate ERM with our acq and print mangement systems. We'd also like to minimize the duplication of another KB, namely, the local catalog and instead rely on WorldCat for monograph/AV/DVD discovery. Many of the CSU's recently began using Summon for discovery. That means duplicate KB mangement since we're currently using SFX and Metalib. We don't want to maintain yet another KB. Library's need better options, and there isn't a single system that can do what I want right now. Most likely, a modular solution will need to suffice for the next several years. Perhaps with a combination of say, Summon for discovery, WorldCat for OPAC-type discovery (if we can phase out the OPAC as a discovery tool, but with DDA and ebook package subscriptions that change monthly, it's difficult to envision), Serials Solutions for ERM management and continuing to use III for all acq and print management. Finally, I can't tell you how disappointed I've been with Ex Libris in the last several years. Verde customers have gotten the shaft. I don't envision ever investing in an ExLibris product again. (Type: Academic)

[...] libraries have just migrated to Millennium in June 2012. All elements of the main contract were fulfilled on time. Ancillary aspects had no set timetable but are being addressed in a timely manner. Training, setup support and ongoing support through this process has been excellent. Functionality relative to the needs of the library is down due to the unsophisticated HomeBound module, however this was known at the time of purchase. Satisfaction is high with reservations, as staff grapple with a new way of doing things and learning the capabilities and limitations of the product. (Type: Public)

The only reason we are considering Civica Spydus is that we are part of a larger library consortium, which running a single LMS project. Civica won the tender for this project. Membership of the single LMS project is not obligitory. (Type: Public)

This is our first year with Millennium so I cannot compare the service with previous years (Type: Academic)

This library is not directly in communication with the vendor. We go through a consortium. However, during the implementation there was very little training done by the vendor to the end users, which was very disappointing. (Type: Public)

Innovative presents very good products, but the documentation to support these products is on occassion confusing. The Help Desk staff is very knowledgeable and resolves issues very effectively and in a timely fashion. The company is also very responsive to customers concerns and suggestions. We have been Innovative customers for about 18 years and I highly recommend them. (Type: Public)

[...] We have also hosted Evergreen for the [...] , but have not committed to moving to Evergreen or another open ILS at this time. (Type: Academic)

[...] is moving to Ex Libris Alma and Primo in January 2014, a shared system of the [...] (Type: Academic)

The collection includes e-book subscriptions (Type: Academic)

Summon is not being used as discovery for catalog, only electronic resources. [...] (Type: Academic)

We have 30000 titles, most of the electronic. Items are physical things that sit on shelves. (Type: Government Agency)

We were scheduled to have SIERRA installed November 2012 but I had to push it back to May 2013 due to server issues. (Type: Academic)

We are considering joining a local library consortium that is implementing Polaris, and if so would migrate to that system. It makes me feel sad, because I think Millennium is a very superior system. However, budget constraints have made it difficult for us to keep up with the latest products from III. (Type: Public)

We looked into our options earlier this year and decided to remain with III but with shrinking budgets we don't want to pay for more than we need. (Type: Public)

Heavily acquiring Electronic - in process of weeding print holdings (Type: Academic)

We hired a new Director who started in January 2012. He came from a library system that used Evergreen. He has been pushing for a change to Evergreen since he came. The automations librarian and I are agreeable to looking at Evergreen, but we keep pointing out the functionality and products that we have with Millennium that we would lose if we were to migrate to Evergreen. Before the new director started, the automations librarian and I were looking forward to migrating to Sierra and the things it would offer. We don't see migrating to Sierra anymore. It looks like we will be on Millennium until we are able to switch to Evergreen. The main reason is the cost. We do not have staff with programming capability so we would have to rely on the open source community to come up with the features that we would want. Our budget is still really tight and other than staffing, our biggest expense is the ILS. (Type: Public)

- (Type: Academic)

Performance problems more noticable since we started importing e-monograph records in large numbers. Multiple added entries for aggregators (eg Ebsco) seem to somehow clog up the author and title indexes. (Type: Academic)

Rapid change. Difficult to keep up for both vendors and libraries, We are starting early to define what we need and who will give us what. Budget is also a big issues. Higher administration hear bits and pieces and thinks we can create a system easily. We have been surprised before to learn that when we migrated we lost things the old system had that we took for granted (Type: Academic)

For the most part, we are pleased with the functionality of Millennium. Issues which cause us concern are the 1) high cost of maintenance, 2) high cost of new products such as Encore or moving to Sierra, and 3) enchancements which are packaged/sold as a new product rather than a standard upgrade in a new release. (Type: Public)

It is difficult to differentiate between satisfaction with the vendor and the product itself. For us, Millennium has served its purpose, but it is cost prohibitive to get the ILS to support the changes we need to implement now and in the future to improve staff efficiency, adapt to new service models, make data driven decisions, inter-operate with other systems, and improve the patron experience. Aside from the cost model, III uses for Millennium, the ILS itself does not give us much flexibility. We recently determined that to bring on RFID and address some significant changes in workflows, it will be more difficult and costly to change Millennium than it will be to go to bid and migrate to a new solution. I've been told that III has changed the cost model for Sierra, however, at this point, the functionality we need now isn't there, so we have decided to go to bid. (Type: Public)

Regarding customer support, too many inexperienced staff provide poor support. This year it took more digging to get to experts who know what's what. (Type: Consortium)

The biggest concern for our library continues to be the costs of operating our ILS. (Type: Academic)

Utilizamos el sistema de forma consorciada con otras instituciones y tenemos algunas opciones limitadas, no podemos utilizar libremente todo lo que ofrece el programa. La difícil situación económica nos impide considerar la adquisición de un interfaz de descubrimiento, cosa que sería útil para consultar simultáneamente la Biblioteca y el Archivo, que utiliza otro programa. (Type: Museum)

- (Type: Academic)

En un futuro próximo no estamos considerando un cambio de sistema. (Type: Government Agency)

At this time the [... Evergreen] ILS is not robust enough for our needs. (Type: Public)

La biblioteca depende de la red de bibliotecas de la [...], que es quien ha adquirido el programa de gestión. Nuestra biblioteca no puede tomar ninguna decisión sobre el programa contratado. (Type: Public)

As part of a consortium we do not have direct contact with ILS vendors - all changes in this regard are done at the consortium level with input from member libraries. (Type: Public)

I wasn't quite sure how to respond to this, as we are on the brink of implementing Sierra--we will be live at the end of January. We have been on Millennium throughout 2012. (Type: Academic)

The [...] led an RFP process in 2011-2012 that resulted in the selection of Ex Libris Alma and Primo. [...] will implement Alma and Primo in[...], with an expected go-live date of January 2014. My library's relationship with the current ILS vendor, Innovative Interfaces, are basically static - not better or worse. Innovative's emerging management system option, Sierra, received serious consideration during the [...] RFP process, while its current discovery product simply isn't competitive with products like Summon and Primo - based on the way Encore functioned in spring 2012. Overall, I see several encouraging signs from Innovative (as my library ends a 17 year relationship with the vendor), including the Sierra product and the tone set by Innovative's new CEO. The bottom line for my library is that we are committed to the shared management system and the Ex Libris Alma/Primo solution was seen as the best option at each stage of the [...] lengthy process (including RFI, RFP written proposals, and RFP demos). (Type: Academic)

We are migrating to Sierra and have subscriptions for Encore Synergy and Content Pro waiting to be installed. (Type: School)

Due the fact we are part of a consortium, our choice for ILS is what ever the collective choose. Our hands are tied on this decision. (Type: Academic)

- (Type: Academic)

We are migrating this year to Evergreen. (Type: Academic)

The main concern I have with ILS and Library product vendors (i.e. ebooks, databases, discovery tools) is that they claim that their products all work well together when in fact they do not and need to do problem solving on the Library's end. While the whole ebook explosion is good, I have found that vendors do not have a solid infrastructure in place to manage them. Another concern is that vendors and link resolvers (ePortals) are not getting their data uploads fast enough to one another in order to provide easy access point in one place--such as our ePortal (serials solutions 360 link). I realize that everything is evolving and will continue to be worked out. People search for information these days much differently then they have in the past and Library's need to be aware of this. (Type: Medical)

We migrated in the past year to a hosted version of our ILS at the vendor's site. It has not been as smooth as we hoped, but seems to be improving. (Type: Academic)

Innovative support is hit or miss and the company charges money for anything and everything. (Type: Public)

In our view, Innovative is overpriced and provides very poor customer service. However, it's one of the very few systems that provides all the features we need. We evaluated several ILS/LMS products over the past year in an attempt to lower costs, to get better customer service, and perhaps to support the open source model. Three products -- Koha (open source), EOS, and OCLC WorldShare/WMS -- made our final cut, but none was entirely satisfactory. (EOS came closest, and their customer service appears to be excellent.) We ended up staying with Innovative after getting a major price reduction from them. Poor customer service remains a problem, however. (Type: Academic)

[...] is considering a transition to the Sierra data structure offered by Innovative, but we are waiting to hear about issues encountered by other systems of similar size that have made the move to Sierra. The high cost of the data conversion is also an issue since we had not included it in budget projections before FY13-14. (Type: Public)

We still like Millennium, and the Sierra formerly known as Millennium, but we need some of the functionality that III only offers as additional--and expensive--products, and we're increasingly unable to afford them. Polaris is whining at the door like Dan Rather's hound dog on a cold night in December. (Type: Public)

Information about other libraries' DAM products would be a useful addition to the Library Automation Survey and technology guides. Thank you. (Type: State)

Would be good if we could get enhancements without a ballot process. we have different needs to US and university libraries. (Type: Public)

We are a medical school library and find that most of our patron requests are for current electronic resources. We have built our own portal for these electronic resources and now find that less and less of our usage is via the catalog. We have statistics to back this up. So, we are always questioning the cost for the ILS vs the usage. (Type: Medical)

[...] has been closed since October 29 because of Hurricane Sandy. We belong to a 52 member computer consortium in Nassau County New York, which migrated to Innovative Interfaces new Sierra platform at the end of November. Because of our closing, the staff has had no experience with this new product; consequently, we cannot comment. (Type: Public)

We've been particularly dissatisfied with III but the consortium decided to stick with it after an ILS review last year. The reason came down primarily to cost, although functionality is lacking. Being a multi-type consortium has its problems one of which is seeing our ILS in the same light. (Type: Consortium)

We completed our implementation in November 2012. During the final stages of our implementation we became aware that the implementation team was working on several other implementations at the same time. We felt at times that we did not receive the level of support or promptness of response that we were expecting. As we have only been live for a month it is difficult for us to give an accurate response to some of the questions. (Type: Academic)

We are currently working on ERM and will then Federated Search prior to deciding on a Discovery Interface or pure integration with the dept. Enterprise wide search, if being developed at that point. (Library Systems team of 1.4 FTEs). (Type: Law)

we are part of a consortial group that would make a consortial decision on changing ILS. However, the data above represents our thoughts/feelings with regard to the consortial input we have. (Type: Academic)

Budgetary concerns remain an issue in moving to discovery platforms and/or Sierra. (Type: Academic)

Will migrate to Sierra in June 2013. Unlikely to move to a new ILS due to [...] commitment to and integration with Innovative - but if that were not a factor, we certainly would consider a new ILS as we are not very satisfied with III. (Type: Academic)

WAM sometimes inadequate. Add-on modules expensive. (Type: Academic)

Number of items is physical items, and is decreasing as we shift the focus of our collection away from print and physical formats. (Type: Academic)

Note: We loaded Hathi freely available records last year which inflates our item count a bit. (Type: Academic)

We will be migrating to OCLC WMS, with a go live date of July 2013. (Type: Academic)

I've not directly experienced the ILS vendor's customer support so I skipped those two questions. (We are in a library network and they provide our ILS suppport) (Type: Consortium)

Innovative must improve on their customer support services/helpdesk to reflect their 24/7 commitments truthfully. (Type: Special)

We are beginning an investigation to possibly migrate in 2015. We have no products in mind yet. (Type: Academic)

- (Type: Public)

We are considering upgrading to the the latest III software (Sierra) - we've looked at what is available currently in "the cloud" and are not impressed, especially from a consortial point of view with our [...] colleagues. But we anticipate that there will be greater reason to review the scene in 3-5 yrs. (Type: Academic)

Support is patchy, problems getting responses or solutions, partly caused by different work patterns, particularly poor if no speedy resolution. Basic functionality fine, but more advanced features don't seem fully integrated with work flow. very poor support for older products no longer in development (Type: Academic)