Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Sierra

2023 Survey Results
Product: Sierra Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction195 2 2 7 8 9 27 36 52 41 11 76.257
ILS Functionality194 2 8 8 5 18 38 56 51 8 76.447
Print Functionality192 1 2 3 4 8 21 48 81 24 87.278
Electronic Functionality190 12 5 22 21 34 24 24 26 18 4 44.605
Company Satisfaction193 3 3 10 6 27 26 38 40 32 8 75.786
Support Satisfaction189 2 6 7 8 10 36 22 43 40 15 76.107
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty192 12 3 12 5 16 38 23 32 29 22 55.676
Open Source Interest171 29 20 22 9 7 20 25 18 8 10 03.974

Considering new ILS200 8040.00%
Considering new Interface200 4221.00%
System Installed on time?200 00.00%

Average Collection size: 853885


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00055
[3] 100,001-250,00043
[4] 250,001-1,000,00046
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00043
[6] over 10,000,0013

2022 Survey Results
Product: Sierra Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction267 6 4 6 13 14 32 49 87 39 17 76.147
ILS Functionality266 2 1 5 14 20 29 56 71 46 22 76.307
Print Functionality266 2 1 3 4 19 32 68 92 45 87.278
Electronic Functionality266 18 9 28 28 33 41 37 37 23 12 54.735
Company Satisfaction265 8 8 11 10 19 39 51 72 34 13 75.776
Support Satisfaction262 6 9 10 9 21 23 54 62 49 19 76.026
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty265 18 7 8 19 22 42 29 55 35 30 75.616
Open Source Interest228 36 18 20 17 12 38 18 26 19 14 54.455

Considering new ILS274 12645.99%
Considering new Interface274 5218.98%
System Installed on time?274 00.00%

Average Collection size: 961637


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00063
[3] 100,001-250,00055
[4] 250,001-1,000,00079
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00056
[6] over 10,000,0014

2021 Survey Results
Product: Sierra Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction274 4 3 10 5 18 28 63 81 49 13 76.227
ILS Functionality273 3 4 4 9 9 36 51 79 62 16 76.427
Print Functionality271 1 1 1 4 18 32 70 92 52 87.378
Electronic Functionality269 10 14 20 23 37 48 37 41 30 9 54.995
Company Satisfaction270 6 7 8 11 21 38 45 72 46 16 75.996
Support Satisfaction270 3 7 11 10 18 32 47 65 55 22 76.177
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty267 22 4 9 11 21 42 38 57 39 24 75.636
Open Source Interest256 43 20 27 21 15 33 28 24 15 18 04.304

Considering new ILS279 9634.41%
Considering new Interface279 238.24%
System Installed on time?279 00.00%

Average Collection size: 1263251


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00065
[3] 100,001-250,00073
[4] 250,001-1,000,00073
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00048
[6] over 10,000,0018

2020 Survey Results
Product: Sierra Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction290 2 2 12 19 13 33 50 94 53 12 76.177
ILS Functionality289 1 3 9 8 16 28 52 92 61 19 76.457
Print Functionality288 1 4 3 6 12 30 62 122 48 87.378
Electronic Functionality291 12 10 23 32 38 43 48 46 29 10 64.995
Company Satisfaction283 5 6 17 16 23 41 56 62 41 16 75.756
Support Satisfaction284 2 10 15 17 14 34 67 60 41 24 65.936
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty289 19 13 14 12 24 46 40 51 38 32 75.516
Open Source Interest264 60 18 22 20 13 35 28 22 24 14 04.054

Considering new ILS299 9431.44%
Considering new Interface299 3511.71%
System Installed on time?299 00.00%

Average Collection size: 760968


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00077
[3] 100,001-250,00077
[4] 250,001-1,000,00069
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00053
[6] over 10,000,0012

2019 Survey Results
Product: Sierra Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction393 3 6 18 20 31 59 78 102 59 17 75.926
ILS Functionality395 2 4 13 28 27 41 75 101 80 24 76.187
Print Functionality393 6 3 2 8 13 19 42 119 116 65 77.067
Electronic Functionality391 13 28 35 27 42 65 63 64 43 11 54.965
Company Satisfaction392 14 12 29 29 45 54 56 88 51 14 75.346
Support Satisfaction391 14 13 28 37 38 64 54 81 46 16 75.266
Support Improvement380 13 9 13 28 52 113 35 53 46 18 55.275
Company Loyalty390 35 14 20 22 40 59 50 70 49 31 75.226
Open Source Interest385 85 35 53 36 43 42 25 24 20 22 03.393

Considering new ILS402 13433.33%
Considering new Interface402 6215.42%
System Installed on time?402 35187.31%

Average Collection size: 823706


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00011
[2] 10,001-100,000104
[3] 100,001-250,00083
[4] 250,001-1,000,000109
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00074
[6] over 10,000,0015

2018 Survey Results
Product: Sierra Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction437 12 3 15 16 30 50 92 120 71 28 76.097
ILS Functionality437 3 8 5 21 27 49 76 121 93 34 76.387
Print Functionality434 3 5 5 8 10 21 51 113 147 71 87.138
Electronic Functionality427 29 15 30 30 53 57 78 73 39 23 65.065
Company Satisfaction438 20 16 23 31 32 55 94 94 50 23 65.456
Support Satisfaction435 26 17 28 31 39 70 72 87 48 17 75.176
Support Improvement428 29 12 15 32 62 122 55 46 31 24 54.935
Company Loyalty430 39 23 23 21 28 72 57 72 55 40 55.236
Open Source Interest426 100 57 54 32 46 55 28 25 18 11 03.073

Considering new ILS443 9521.44%
Considering new Interface443 5712.87%
System Installed on time?443 38987.81%

Average Collection size: 811957


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00012
[2] 10,001-100,000108
[3] 100,001-250,00092
[4] 250,001-1,000,000125
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00076
[6] over 10,000,0013

2017 Survey Results
Product: Sierra Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction419 1 8 19 34 45 93 132 70 17 76.277
ILS Functionality416 1 1 8 16 26 58 83 110 86 27 76.397
Print Functionality419 3 1 2 2 10 21 41 127 142 70 87.308
Electronic Functionality407 10 19 24 32 53 71 62 85 41 10 75.205
Company Satisfaction417 3 10 34 44 38 68 64 88 52 16 75.426
Support Satisfaction413 6 22 30 36 43 59 72 79 49 17 75.306
Support Improvement409 20 8 23 29 51 92 47 74 35 30 55.275
Company Loyalty411 24 12 23 33 39 70 52 71 52 35 75.366
Open Source Interest409 110 67 57 34 37 42 23 19 9 11 02.652

Considering new ILS422 8119.19%
Considering new Interface422 4811.37%
System Installed on time?422 37789.34%

Average Collection size: 839431


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0007
[2] 10,001-100,00092
[3] 100,001-250,00084
[4] 250,001-1,000,000126
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00095
[6] over 10,000,0012

2016 Survey Results
Product: Sierra Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction430 3 4 12 23 26 48 75 144 76 19 76.237
ILS Functionality428 1 3 8 23 27 47 72 120 93 34 76.437
Print Functionality427 3 1 2 10 15 25 46 107 148 70 87.168
Electronic Functionality424 18 12 27 35 40 72 65 94 46 15 75.296
Company Satisfaction427 7 18 17 37 40 60 79 99 55 15 75.546
Support Satisfaction426 11 18 34 35 43 67 65 90 45 18 75.266
Support Improvement421 24 10 28 28 71 104 51 50 32 23 54.925
Company Loyalty424 22 20 15 23 44 65 60 80 54 41 75.526
Open Source Interest425 113 69 63 36 39 44 24 22 10 5 02.592

Considering new ILS433 5813.39%
Considering new Interface433 409.24%
System Installed on time?433 39390.76%

Average Collection size: 748349


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0007
[2] 10,001-100,000102
[3] 100,001-250,00095
[4] 250,001-1,000,000130
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00081
[6] over 10,000,0011

Statistics according to type and size categories

The following table presents the 2015 results according to the type and size of the library.

SatisfactionLevelILS3296.18 486.46556.16425.95745.97425.7951206.35
ILSFunctionality3296.48 486.54556.51426.29746.19426.3151206.95
PrintFunctionality3267.17 487.52557.33427.55726.53416.6351207.55
ElectronicFunctionality3225.43 465.54555.62415.00735.05415.4951195.26
SatisfactionCustomerSupport3225.17 465.54565.00425.29714.99404.3051205.00
CompanyLoyalty3235.40 475.49565.32424.95725.49415.0051205.60

2015 Survey Results
Product: Sierra Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction329 3 6 8 12 24 39 66 100 51 20 76.187
ILS Functionality329 4 2 6 12 19 31 62 95 68 30 76.487
Print Functionality326 2 3 2 7 13 8 34 93 112 52 87.178
Electronic Functionality322 11 6 23 24 31 42 70 68 29 18 65.436
Company Satisfaction325 8 10 21 28 30 50 56 63 42 17 75.456
Support Satisfaction322 11 18 28 26 36 39 51 55 39 19 75.176
Support Improvement316 29 10 25 31 40 91 28 29 20 13 54.485
Company Loyalty323 19 9 18 24 38 48 41 53 38 35 75.406
Open Source Interest322 93 49 44 29 36 28 12 16 8 7 02.542

Considering new ILS334 4312.87%
Considering new Interface334 3911.68%
System Installed on time?334 29387.72%

Average Collection size: 760283


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00010
[2] 10,001-100,00067
[3] 100,001-250,00078
[4] 250,001-1,000,000104
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00064
[6] over 10,000,0010

2014 Survey Results
Product: Sierra Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction281 10 5 10 17 15 35 45 87 46 11 75.907
ILS Functionality281 3 9 11 12 12 29 38 75 66 26 76.327
Print Functionality281 2 4 7 13 12 13 20 59 102 49 86.988
Electronic Functionality273 10 15 12 20 31 33 51 49 37 15 65.386
Company Satisfaction281 18 13 11 14 21 39 41 66 46 12 75.486
Support Satisfaction272 18 12 15 21 22 28 44 60 39 13 75.326
Support Improvement271 30 11 10 22 40 62 26 33 23 14 54.665
Company Loyalty274 26 6 15 16 24 34 32 41 37 43 95.526
Open Source Interest279 93 54 39 19 24 24 10 9 2 5 02.111

Considering new ILS288 3110.76%
Considering new Interface288 4415.28%
System Installed on time?288 24986.46%

Average Collection size: 725997


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00063
[3] 100,001-250,00077
[4] 250,001-1,000,00078
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00059
[6] over 10,000,0010

2013 Survey Results
Product: Sierra Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction170 2 1 12 5 3 12 22 55 39 19 76.547
ILS Functionality170 1 1 4 8 4 12 15 54 51 20 76.857
Print Functionality170 1 2 1 3 8 17 23 73 42 87.558
Electronic Functionality167 3 3 2 13 13 29 30 31 30 13 75.976
Company Satisfaction170 3 6 6 10 8 12 11 59 37 18 76.347
Support Satisfaction166 3 6 9 7 7 18 28 38 32 18 76.117
Support Improvement165 6 6 5 8 16 47 21 18 18 20 55.555
Company Loyalty169 12 4 3 4 4 22 16 37 31 36 76.367
Open Source Interest165 54 28 25 14 13 17 5 2 3 4 02.192

Considering new ILS173 105.78%
Considering new Interface173 3620.81%
System Installed on time?173 16092.49%

Average Collection size: 746241


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00035
[3] 100,001-250,00034
[4] 250,001-1,000,00055
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00035
[6] over 10,000,0010

2012 Survey Results
Product: Sierra Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction92 1 1 1 1 13 12 26 29 8 86.877
ILS Functionality92 1 2 1 1 6 17 25 27 12 86.987
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction93 1 1 2 2 11 8 23 28 17 87.087
Support Satisfaction90 1 2 1 3 5 17 21 20 20 77.047
Support Improvement92 1 2 3 8 4 30 7 15 11 11 55.785
Company Loyalty92 2 2 2 4 10 7 12 15 38 97.228
Open Source Interest92 37 16 11 7 4 10 2 3 1 1 01.901

Considering new ILS96 44.17%
Considering new Interface96 2020.83%
System Installed on time?96 7881.25%

Average Collection size: 823674


Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00020
[3] 100,001-250,00021
[4] 250,001-1,000,00024
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00026
[6] over 10,000,0010

2 Responses for Sierra in 2011

0 Responses for Sierra in 2010

0 Responses for Sierra in 2009

0 Responses for Sierra in 2008

0 Responses for Sierra in 2007

2023 : gen: 6.25 company 5.78 loyalty 5.67 support 6.10

2022 : gen: 6.14 company 5.77 loyalty 5.61 support 6.02

2021 : gen: 6.22 company 5.99 loyalty 5.63 support 6.17

2020 : gen: 6.17 company 5.75 loyalty 5.51 support 5.93

2019 : gen: 5.92 company 5.34 loyalty 5.22 support 5.26

2018 : gen: 6.09 company 5.45 loyalty 5.23 support 5.17

2017 : gen: 6.27 company 5.42 loyalty 5.36 support 5.30

2016 : gen: 6.23 company 5.54 loyalty 5.52 support 5.26

2015 : gen: 6.18 company 5.45 loyalty 5.40 support 5.17

2014 : gen: 5.90 company 5.48 loyalty 5.52 support 5.32

2013 : gen: 6.54 company 6.34 loyalty 6.36 support 6.11

2012 : gen: 6.87 company 7.08 loyalty 7.22 support 7.04


Nuestra biblioteca depende del main campus, en [...] . Son ellos quienes toman las decisiones respecto del SIGB. Este año les hemos preguntado al respecto y estas fueron sus respuestas: "... we are living in interesting times and developments regarding library business but so far we have been mainly following and evaluating these developments and are not planning to migrate to any cloud-based library management systems in any foreseeable future. BIBFRAME is also something we're watching closely as things progress but we have no concrete plans regarding BIBFRAME at this time, other than continuing educating ourselves" (Type: Academic)

Our migration was abysmal. Because of that, many issues linger. It is hard to tell which are limitations of Sierra and which are limitations based on how poorly our data came over. We feel that the sales team misrepresented the product as completely adaptable for consortium use, and repeatedly told us that everything they were showing us was included. They failed to mention that almost every consortial adaptation comes with an additional cost. Also, we have a hosted solution. Slow speed and recurring downtime are real problems. (Type: Public)

OCLC WorldShare is becoming a very robust product that will allow for resource sharing at all levels, such as circulation, ILL, and also knowledge base, vendors, analytical reports, and repositories and special collections (Type: Academic)

I'm getting more concerned with the direction of Innovative after the recent departure of Kim Massana. People on the IUG list have commented on the decline in customer service responsiveness. I hope they can steady the ship. (Type: Consortium)

The claims of full integration with our corporate systems seem to have been somewhat lacking. 18 months on and nothing has been integrated yet. They do use API's but as these are mainly read only are of limited use. The system includes an inbuilt ERM - but there are no links in the records to any of the e-resources! Who ever thought that a system that looks after e-resources does not consider linking out to them sensible! Fines payment on our self check does not work the way we asked (it did with our previous vendor). Holds do not work in a way we like and ILL seems positively backward! Could go on a bit more but you have probably got the jist that as the Systems Librarian - I am not impressed. (Type: Academic)

III's customer service has fallen below acceptable levels, and the system's total cost of ownership has become hard to justify. (Type: Academic)

for Discover - we have Summon- yet considering others. For III other than opening support center in Dublin IRE little if anything is better. Sierra is still mostly just a tan Millennium. Nothing since the Sierra advent from the old charcater based system has ported over as it was suppose to over time. New releases are really only about stabilizing old with very little NEW or better anything. On the positive side Sierra 2.0 SP3 does appear more stable (1 week old) than previous releases. (Type: Academic)

We had to upgrade to Sierra as a consortia.There are duplicate bar codes and 10 digit bar codes still in use in the consoria. That limited our choice. Open Source was discussed by the state library commission tech but not much was shared. (Type: Public)

After purchasing Polaris and VTLS Innovative has fallen apart. Customer Service has been non-existent outside of a small handful of especially good staff. There were 3 releases in a row we were unable to install due to system critical bugs introduced in those releases. There has appeared to be a mass exodus of talent from the company, including many who have worked for the company for years, taking their institutional knowledge with them. (Type: Consortium)

Our consortium does a good job of responding to all of the customer libraries. However, being part of the consortium makes assessing Sierra somewhat unfair. As a stand alone the product would likely be much more closely aligned to our needs. However, the consortium is more cost effective. (Type: Academic)

We are in a 5 year contract with iii but are watching what is happening with [...] as they are in the process of creating a RFP for a new ILS. (Type: Academic)

Innovative's customer support has declined significantly, in my opinion, since they acquired Polaris and Virtua. Tickets frequently disappear into the ether or languish for months, even years if not followed up on by library (me). Also, we have not been totally satisfied with the functionality of their Encore discovery layer and the Synergy product in particular. From demos of other vendors' products, Innovative's development of discovery and library services platforms is lagging behind. (Type: Academic)

Regarding the "on schedule" question, the core functionality was ready on time, but some customizations and add-ons that Innovative promised after implementation are still not ready for production 17 months later. Overall, I'm happy with them, but they did oversell it. (Type: Public)

We are pleased with the customer service we get through our consortium, but very disappointed with Innovative's response to contract issues that have not been resolved. (Type: Public)

[..] (Type: Public)

We have now been on III's Sierra product for about a year. In general, I would say staff and patrons are relatively happy with it. Encore is a huge improvement over HIP in most situations. From the staff perspective the biggest complaints center around holds and notices. Both seem buggy and the work flow is inefficient. On the plus side, the ability to copy and paste and have longer comments is greatly appreciated. To our surprise, Sierra does not handle a consortium, or quasi-consortium, environment particularly well. The loan rule table and notice options are limited compared to the options we had in Horizon. The back end is a mess. Data is stored in 2 different DBMS, on different servers, as well as in flat files. In addition, the database structure is terrible. I hope that as Sierra continues to move away from Millennium this will improve but it will be a slow process. III claims to be an "open library" experience. I don't know what they're talking about. Yes, they have APIs but they're very limited. The default database access is only for SQL views and is limited to 5 connections at a time. Libraries aren't even allowed select only access to the base tables. Not all database/tables are represented in the views. Regarding support: Support is very fast if you ask a question that fits within their paradigm. Otherwise, it's extremely slow. We have several tickets that have been open since we implemented. Follow-up questions I ask regarding these tickets get sent to a black hole. III never warns us before they get on the server which makes it hard to pinpoint when a change they made may have negatively impacted a related area. III does not appear to have any interest in setting up meetings to discuss the problems in detail, to make sure they understand the problem, and then come up with a plan of attack. I would suggest they train their staff on have to conduct a reference interview. We try to be clear in our tickets but we're obviously coming from a very different background than their techs. Regarding our contract. The majority of the implementation was done on time. However, there is one component we feel is major that was in the contract and has yet to be implemented. From what we can figure out, III does not know how to implement it. If we had known this ahead of time it probably would have swung the IT vote to Polaris (though in retrospect we're happy we didn't choose a product that III then later bought). (Type: Public)

At times, I think that support has improved, but then we come across a larger problem that is not fixed in a timely manner. Recently, we had an issue that went on for over five weeks. When we finally narrowed down the issue, the staff we were working with did not know where the change needed to be made in the system and it took almost another week for the setting to be changed. On simpler issues, tech support is great. And it has improved because of additional staff and offices. But there is still an issue. We just had our account representative visit us for the first time in almost three years. He seemed genuine and apologetic and explained there is restructuring and he just started as our rep in the beginning of the year. (Type: Consortium)

Since this library is part of a consortium we would particpate in whatever system the consortium would migrate to. It is not fiscally feasible at this time to migrate to another system, open or otherwise, without the support of a consortium. (Type: Academic)

The purchase of Innovative Interfaces by equity companies has seen an overall decline in customer service here in Canada, which is unfortunate since there are many customers in this country. The support from the Help Desk is uneven and response time to emails and phone calls, well often not at all. We are replacing Encore with Summon, dropping WebBridge, PathFinderPro, materials bookings and Interlibrary loan modules. (Type: Academic)

These types of decisions are made by our consortium through [...] (Type: Public)

Since the internationalization of the non-US libraries III sales and support has become scattered and often difficult to deal with - lack of coordinated efforts and clear points of contact. (Type: Academic)

Sierra/Encore is incapable of handling a 'New-England style' consortia where adjacent public libraries have widely differing governance structures, loan policies, and financial support. Its primitive database and software consider all items from all libraries to be one combined interchangeable collection. Innovative's cloud-based product has frequent (near-weekly) outages. (Type: Public)

We have not been very happy with the way things have been going at III. While the tech support received is good (when you get someone), the pricing and the lack of development accorded to their existing products is abysmal. They seem to roll out half-baked products and then don't improve (see AirPAC). Then instead of improving what you already paid too much money for (for what you get), they instead roll out a new, supposedly improved product (MyLibrary!) and want you to pay again for that product. When it's time to upgrade or migrate (when our servers are coming end-of-life), we will look at other vendors. (Type: Public)

Although the company still provides an excellent product and customer service, changes in management without direct notification to the customers does have our library a bit concerned. It's definitely a different company than the one that we knew even five years ago. (Type: Public)

Sierra has been plagued with bugs since our go live date 3 years ago. We can't upgrade the product because of big problems in the system. (Type: Public)

Innovative seems to be struggling since being purchased by a investment company. They don't seem to be very innovative during the past five years. They need to step up their game plan. We are interested in Hydra in a Box. We hope that it won't require a lot of programming staff to implement it and keep it running. (Type: Academic)

we will be changing our link resolver from SFX but do not have a product in mind at this point (Type: Academic)

While customer service has greatly improved over the last year it is still spotty with some simple tickets remaining open for months.... (Type: Public)

Encore Duet has been very problematic. (Type: Academic)

Other departments in my institution are implementing content management systems designed for the museum field. Innovative Interfaces, as well as the [...] (our new service provider) compares very favorably on scheduling and meeting deadlines for data migration/ implementation. (Type: Museum)

Innovative's customer support and ability to solve issues was already bad and continues to get worse, installing Service Packs has a strong chance of breaking functions that were working, lack of knowledge of how functions are supposed to work due to so many employees quitting or being let go (Type: Public)

We migrated from Millennium to Sierra this year. The migration went very smoothly. The Innovative support team was very helpful and responsive during the migration. (Type: Public)

Version of Sierra we are currently on is stable and we've had fewer issues with the software in the past year. Concerned about continued fallout of big acquisitions and how this continues to impact how the company operates. Support ratings mostly reflect our dissatisfaction with support for Encore and ongoing difficulties with online ticketing system. (Type: Medical)

We are one member of a consortium that shares an ILS. We have been very unhappy with Innovative since implementation. Slow and poor response to our issues from day one, only now actually being addressed once we took legal action to address contractual performance issues. I hope I'll have better things to say next year. (Type: Public)

The questions re ILS functionality & satisfaction give pause for thought! Some services which were previously undertaken within the ILS are now migrated to separate products (e.g. Talis Aspire Reading Lists replacing Sierra Course Reserves; Image Management system replacing the Sierra Media Management component). So any possible increase in functionality & satisfaction scores could be because the aspects which the system handled less well are now handled elsewhere. (Type: Academic)

Have to prompt support staff to follow up on tickets more than i'd like, and sometimes feel like they aren't the greatest communicators. (Type: Law)

I think that Innovative Interfaces who we just migrated to in July 2014 lacks quality support and training mechanisms. Questions linger for days, or even weeks, and the resolutions are seldom adequate. The best thing about III is the access to views of the SQL tables, but it is unclear to me why III does not open access to all tables and provide read/write access. APIs are being added to the product, but SQL access is much preferred. (Type: Academic)

Innovative does not meet the needs of a law library. It cannot work with major legal publishers that provide 75% of our materials. It does not aggressively offer open-source access to data that would allow it to work with other products. Support and sales are arrogant and dismissive of individual library needs. Move to vc funding has given the company a sense of worldliness and self-importance that is not appealing to the library world. (Type: Law)

Since being taken over by the investment group, Innovative has steadily gone downhill. Innovation is no longer present, customer service is non-existent (every problem is either a software issue and it does not get resolved) and every new feature is a service with 3 year commitments at high prices. (Type: Academic)

Overall, we feel that III is really struggling to remain relevant. It must be challenging to maintain a huge number of legacy systems while trying to take small steps ahead with products like MyiLibrary, Mobile Worklists, and their partnership with EBSCO to build some sort of new knowledge base. When you look at products like Alma, WMS, and Intota that seemed to be designed more around real workflows, offer more contemporary web interfaces, and have powerful business intelligence software to help libraries gain insight into the usage of their collections, Sierra just looks...well...slow and old. (Type: Consortium)

We are very disappointed in the direction Innovative Interfaces has taken since being bought by private equity. There seems to be a lack of focus on where the company is headed and very little development of Sierra and other existing products. They are not delivering on the promises they made when launching Sierra. They made lots of promises to get us to migrate, but we have little return on our investment. Customer service has gotten very poor. Some tickets remain open for months and need to be escalated. Even then, we get shuffled around. No one seems to know how to help. Innovative seems to have little interest in retaining its customers. (Type: Academic)

Sierra is not perfect and was over-hyped but there is nothing better at the moment. (Type: Academic)

Negative comments:

Positive comments: (Type: Consortium)

III are an extremely professional company, offering good solid support to customers. (Type: Public)

Some here questioning whether Sierra offers the full benefits of a true LSP but switching systems is by no means certain given how embedded the system in our current infrastructure. (Type: Academic)

III support from help desk staff has deteriorated and at best is inconsistent. III product documentation does not contain the details necessary to promote client independence in problem resolution and in some cases is inaccurate. Sierra functionality continues to feel like using a 1990's ILS with limited integration. Very disappointing to have to operate in antiquarian system when technology in general has advanced so rapidly in the last decade. (Type: Public)

[...] is part of the [...] Consortium. The Consortium is actively considering a move to a new ILS/Discovery platform, due to dissatisfaction with support for Encore EDS. (Type: Academic)

Sierra users have their own listserv and conference to address issues and concerns from other users because of the lack of efficient help from Innovative. (Type: Public)

As someone who works on a reference desk for most of the day, the search feature of Sierra really leaves a lot to be desired. Simply functions like putting multiple items on hold without have to perform the search multiple times, or a patron keyword search are either non existent or require acrobatics. Also, the system is SO static. If I'm looking at a checked out item record, why can I just click on the patron whose checked it out and open up their patron record. No, I have to copy their name and go back to change to a patron search and then paste the patron name. I truly miss Polaris. (Type: Public)

We are extremely disappointed with Innovative. They sold us on their vision of Sierra, which is great, but in practice, it does not deliver. There are many workflows that do not make sense, and many seemingly small tweaks that would greatly improve the product. But many of these have been enhancement requests for years, and have never been addressed. It has numerous, sometimes "showstopping", bugs. Support is terrible, and development is excruciatingly slow. For example, one feature that influenced our decision to acquire was the scheduler product. It flat out does not work. I had a ticket open with support, and they kept trying to get me to run different test scenarios. After nearly a dozen different iterations of duplicating a problem, I had to tell them I did not have time to debug their product for them, and that this clearly belonged in software development, and NOT the helpdesk. I can't express how dramatic the effect of our migration has been. The comparison of how it works to Horizon is stark. Despite our efforts to manage change, staff morale has plummeted, and Sierra is the frequent butt of jokes and object of ridicule. We can't wait until our contract is up. (Type: Public)

We have been continually frustrated by III's inability to quickly resolve some massive system-wide issues with checkins/checkouts, as well as problematic changes to the OPAC following Millennium-to-Sierra migration, and a product uninstaller for Sierra that actually doesn't clear all files from the computer (leading to many headaches when we've needed to reinstall, install a new version, etc.). (Type: Public)

I am not sure if I answered the questions correctly. We use iii's Sierra system through our consortium, [...]. We deal with [...] personnel, not the vendor directly. I answered the questions treating [...] as our "vendor". In our previous survey, we used KOHA, through ByWater solutions. I hope this makes sense. mve (Type: Public)

Innovative support ranges from good on some requests, to poor or non-existent on other requests. Definitely not consistent. Software has slow response time, so workflow, especially in cataloging, has slowed considerably since implementation of this new system. Encore discovery is nice, but has some design flaws. Mobile version still connects to old version of patron online account, whereas the desktop version connects to a newer version of the patron online account. Doesn't provide a consistent user experience. (Type: Public)

This library has had III/Millenium/Sierra since 1990's. We have not kept up with the updates and it has not kept up with other companies. The tech support just is not there. It takes days to answer questions. Its usability as far as staff is a clunky nightmare. I moved from a Polaris library to here. I knew there was better out there. We will change if the board can be convinced. (Type: Public)

We have to go thru another library for ILS issues so that's why I didn't answer some of the questions. (Type: Academic)

The continued charging for "new products" that should be included as updates to existing products has soured us toward this company, as has the continued labeling of needed software changes that are really fixes as "enhancements". As is true with many discovery systems, the loss of the ability to display index-ordered search results, and to make use of cross-references, makes Encore less than optimal for use in an academic environment, and forces us to continue to offer access to the "classic catalog" along with the discovery system. (Type: Academic)

En general podemos estar satisfechos con la aplicación, pero creemos que los avances tecnológicos y los retos a abordar nos hacen ser más exigentes respecto al producto actual. (Type: Academic)

I have the feeling that Innovative have had to spend so much time fixing bugs in Sierra it hasn't developed anything like as quickly as it should have, and Sierra is looking outdated as a result. Their persistence with a client/server architecture also now looks outdated. Our opinion of the company has gone down over the last few years, mostly due to bug problems and lack of development in Sierra. (Type: Academic)

I feel like our vendor is more stretched out thin than ever as far as product support is concerned, probably because of focus on cloud-based development and recent purchases of other ILS products. (Type: Academic)

Our upgrade decision is determined by the overall decision of our [...] consortium. (Type: Academic)

Our recent migration from Millennium to Sierra was smooth and almost entirely painless. (Type: Independent Research)

Since we aren't large by the ILS provider's standards, they simply don't care that we've had a major, unresolved issue ever since migrating to the current circulation platform. It's hard to feel good about a company whose product has cost us patrons when, as far as we can tell, no one associated with that company is even concerned about it. (Type: Public)

Esto es una aclaración a la pregunta de si etá considerando la biblioteca, actualmente migra a un nuevo SIGB. Estamos realizando una evaluación de las Plataformas de Servicios de Bibliotecas que existen actualmente en el mercado y por tanto evaluamos también Sierra, por lo que continuar con Sierra es también una alternativa. (Type: Academic)

Our migration to a new ILS, Sierra was very well handled and supported. This occurred last year in 2015. It the past 6 months, I've noticed that customer relations has generally decreased. Response times to changes, questions and issues is quite slow. The implementation team for the Discovery Layer was horrible. They seemed completely disinterested in assisting us with questions, or making timely changes to issues. As well, many issues were left unresolved when we were told our implementation was complete (many things still not working) and that we would have to finish our work by creating tickets through their help desk. A month later, many issues are still not resolved and we are many months behind in releasing the new discovery layer to staff and the public. (Type: Public)

We did have Summon as our discovery system, but switched to EDS December 1, 2015. (Type: Academic)

note - increase in item count - we now include e-resources. Innovative is woeful for customer service. Their product isnt Mac friendly. We havent yet implemented the latest release because of all the new problems it creates.... However, we don't see any other ILS out there that looks any better and we don't have the funding to make the switch anyway....sigh. Discovery - we've tried a few most recent - Encore - we were not impressed. We are Discovery free right now and beginning a study to see how impacts us if at all. We are very interested in the Ithaca white paper stance about Discovery. (Type: Academic)

The transition from TLC LS/LS2 Staff to Innovative's Sierra was rough in having to deal with slower load times and transaction times. Log in is often delayed by Javascript and its cache errors. Some functionality and simplicity were lost by comparison. Create Lists in Sierra is so far much more complex than TLC's Report Manager. Part of the disappointment in migrating to a "Cadilac" ILS is lack of familiarity with the product. The consortium tries to be liaison with III, but cannot be expected to know the ILS as much as the vendor. (Type: Academic)

Innovation Interfaces Inc. honors the contract by resolving reported issues and forwarding open issues to software engineers. They release updates on targeted schedules, but the updates tend to break functions, as a result, we choose to remain on an older versions that continues to meet our basic needs. (Type: Public)

We are uncertain how well the recently-changed management of Innovative Interfaces Inc. knows the library community and needs; the direction of the firm seems unclear given its very large number of recent acquisitions. (Type: Academic)

We are in the process of migration to Sierra and have not been very satisfied with the work Innovative has done with the issues that have cropped up in the migration. Perhaps these answers will be different in a year. (Type: Consortium)

Regarding the customer service issue, there are some wonderful, knowledgeable staff at iii. They need more of these people. The length of time that it currently takes to address non-emergency issues is becoming longer. It actually got better for a short time, but in the second half of 2015, I noticed a vast difference in turnaround time, and tickets continue to languish. The restructuring of Library Relations Manager regions has affected us greatly, and we have no one to go to as an advocate or support for us. Our sales rep was picking up the slack for the LRM, and this person has recently resigned. My two strongest points about this vendor: 1) Company needs to attract and retain good staff. Don't leave your customers languishing. 2) Company still needs to focus on better beta testing for bugs before releasing new products. We haven't upgraded our software in a year because of the known issues. We also purchased (from iii) an add-on for our discovery layer that iii can't get to work and hasn't addressed with us. They need more help in their software engineering area to program better products. (Type: Public)

The library recently underwent a migration from Voyager to Sierra, as part of a consortia decision, thus we do not have enough historical input to provide more than a mid-range answer to these questions. So far as implementation of agreed upon items - there has been some dispute over what was "sold" to us versus what we are receiving. (Type: Academic)

We had a rushed and very disappointing implementation as part of new national consortium. We have gone backwards in terms of cataloguing / adding items, notices to patrons (SMS is not available), integration with third party products - poor Patron API, SIP. Processes seem to take much longer. It has been a real challenge to make it work as a consortium of 6 library authorities and I wonder is it the right product for such a project (eventually will be 23 library authorities). Is it more suited to academic environment? (Type: Public)

Sierra si basa su un database relazionale di tipo Open Source, anziché sul database Oracle (utilizzato per Millennium) che è di proprietà della ditta Oracle Corporation (con conseguente costo di manutenzione e supporto). E' possibile quindi accedere al database di Sierra utilizzando strumenti di reporting SQL di terze parti. Sierra è indicizzato attraverso Lucene (anch'esso Open Source). L'avvio delle funzioni in Sierra è leggermente più lento di quanto avveniva in Millennium, ma con Sierra scompaiono alcune limitazioni presenti in Millennium (es. Sierra offre un numero illimitato di licenze, rispetto a Millennium che offriva "50 licenze per lo staff" delle biblioteche: ciò si traduce nel fatto che non esiste più il limite massimo di 50 sessioni simultanee e che tutti i bibliotecari abilitati sul sistema possono lavorare simultaneamente). (Type: Academic)

Here's hoping that the acquisition of Polaris by Innovative will improve customer service and product development. (Type: Public)

Innovative Interfaces' customer service has declined steeply over the past year or so--we've experienced it, and other III customers have experienced it. We have spoken with III representatives about this and have received assurance that they're aware of it and are working to correct the problems. In general, we're a bit concerned about what direction III may be headed, with the customer service problems, the sudden departure of the CEO, and the fact that Sierra has been a bit of a let down. That said, having access to the database via SQL in Sierra has been a great help--we've been able to do many things with Sierra we couldn't do with Millennium. It makes me more interested in potentially adopting a fully open source ILS in the future, although that would be a big transition for us as an organization. (Type: Academic)

Many products, such as inventory, text messaging, OAI-harvested integration with Encore, holds, etc. continue to be sub-par for use by a multi-type consortium. Encore in particular is a good souped up "pac" but cannot compete with Summon or WorldCat; the webpac is ancient code and non-responsive design; and new additions for "mobile" continue to all be fraught with "This but not that" syndrome, making almost all public facing products unuseable. Company needs to put forward a single useful public product that works and refund money for all the multiple mobile and worklist and pac and web page and iterations of encore that are out there and focus on one that is useable by all with all functionality. So many stops and starts and sputters with these products and then none are usable. A real failure in my opinion. We also continue to use Intota Assessment with some reservation; while we continue to champion Summon and we'd be waifs without it, we do not yet see Intota's product line being able to be competition for Sierra. OCLC WDS/WMS does not also seem to be able to give us adequate print and electronic management tools, and with the acquisition of ExLibris and Polaris, there are few choices left for multi-types to look at? (Type: Academic)

We were dissatisfied with the functionalities provided by Sierra, especially the integration between the ILS and the university's other enterprise systems. Therefore, we are in the process of migrating to Alma/Primo in hope that the new system provides users with better user experience with the library's resources. (Type: Academic)

Transition to hosted Sierra was mainly smooth, but feel that III is becoming less responsive to queries. (Type: Academic)

Our vendor is mostly dealt with at the system level. I don't have a lot of interaction with the vendor. (Type: Public)

Of primary interest to our staff is the opportunity to submit recommendations for product enhancements that benefit the library customers and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of staff. Through a users group our Systems Administrator and other staff interact with a network of colleagues - to ask questions, provide tips, advocate for improvements and exchange support. (Type: Public)

Our system is provided through a consortium. (Type: Public)

The current ILS Vendor has not upheld certain contrqctual obligations: specifically some of the functionality related to holds of materials. yhe state library is among those who are unhappy wiht the results. Thes ystem is reliable but the company is slow to negotiate and commit to making the changes requested. (Type: Public)

Development at III is rapid and future-thinking. However, that means that getting current bugs fixed can sometimes be delayed while the next version of the failing function is being finished. This also means that if a problem affects only one customer, the problem tends to be put on the back burner if the resources needed to fix it are too great. (Type: Public)

The core Sierra product seems to be developing decently if a bit slowly, though support is declining once again over the last year. Ancillary products and extra-cost features are more problematic, such as Encore, Encore mobile, frozen holds, volume records, INN-Reach, Content Pro, etc., and there seems to be no effort to continue developing, repairing or enhancing existing (i.e. no new purchase cost) products. III keeps trying to shift us instead to new products, which are of course new sales. The billing is also problematic this year, with many large invoices being incorrect and needing revision downward. We're also being hassled for invoices which have been paid. None of this inspires confidence in their current business model. (Type: Consortium)

This survey is for the entirety of the [...] (25 Locations) [...] (Type: Public)

When looking at discovery layer products, the Innovative products were quickly ruled out. This was partially because the company had been misleading during our search for a new ILS. The consortium has had issues with poor customer service, delayed updates & incompatibility with current Java updates in dealings with Innovative. (Type: Public)

III has started to turn around their Customer and Support service. They still have a long way to go. (Type: Public)

All of the training offered by Innovative Interfaces is prohibitively expensive. The Sierra documentation is disappointing. There are few screen shots and in many instances the Millennium documentation hasn't been updated for Sierra. On numerous occasions I've found that the documentation doesn't match the way that the product actually works. Since I'm dependent on the documentation, this is a big deal for me however the support staff seem to view this as a minor problem. Several functions important to my library no longer worked after we installed a new software level. I discovered during a presentation at the Mid-Atlantic Innovative Users Group that III no longer codes and installs bug fixes as bugs are discovered. Their plan for bug fixes seems to be to add them to a development release that may be a year or two away. I worked a software developer for decades and customers were never told to wait years for a bug fix. This thinking is incomprehensible to me. (Type: Special)

III has had a very rough year and being one of their customers has not been a great experience. It does seem that the company is truly trying to get itself back on track as a leader in innovation and quality the ILS world. Currently, they are saying the right things, but time will tell if they actually are able to follow through. (Type: Public)

We are part of a large consortium which has some challenges. The most disappointing thing is the automatic calling feature as it doesn't always work and we don't know it until a patron happens to come in and find out they have items ready for pickup but didn't get a call. (Type: Public)

The questions left unanswered mean I dont know the answer (Type: Public)

Innovative's Support for both Sierra and Encore is usually very slow. Trouble ticket response time has greatly increased, even when there is a critical problem. We have had to escalate issues on multiple occasions to get problems resolved. Often there is no answer when you call the support line. (Type: Public)

Our library upgraded to Sierra 2.0 in 2015 and the platform was so buggy we have had SP3 rolled out in the same year. Before the end of the year we upgraded to Sierra 2.1. Four upgrades in a year is a heavy load for a stand along library. (Type: Public)

The questions I did not answer do not apply. (Type: Public)

Some support ticket responses have been weeks and months late. Some support staff responses are unhelpful "check the documentation" types, and some support staff seem new to the product. Response time and general level of support is definitely worse than our previous vendor (SirsiDynix). That said, we have not had many problems with the software and are becoming more comfortable with it since our late 2013 implementation. (Type: Public)

Product is integrated into the III Inn-Reach system in place in our state. That integration is primary benefit of using III/Sierra. (Type: Academic)

III is too rigid and lacks features that would be helpful. It would be nice to search for patrons by phone number, address, etc. Also, the create reports module is very difficult to use which means that managing collections is more cumbersome and less likely to be able to run reports on the collection. Seems to be designed for academic libraries rather than public libraries. (Type: Public)

Very expensive. Poor product design. (Type: Public)

As a member of the library consortium that uses this product, I am completely satisfied with it. (Type: Public)

As part of statewide consortium that did vendor demos of ILS systems, we became acutely aware of the ways in which III has not kept up with the market or technology. It is hard to see how they will catch up let alone move ahead of the market. (Type: Academic)

We're members of a regional consortium and are in a shared ILS with [...] colleges/universities. This definitely complicates our experience and ability to customize. (Type: Academic)

[...] (Type: Academic)

We migrated to Sierra a few years ago and it continues to underperform to our expectations of a next generation ILS. The future of the company under venture capital management is disconcerting, as well. We have not experienced significant performance gains since the underwhelming migration, so are looking at new ILSs that are truly next-gen. Major frustrations have included: 1. A slow java-based client (worse than an old instance of Millennium, no less) 2. Costly add-on features 3. Annual cost increases that have grown in percentage in recent years (Type: Academic)

746,712 bib titles; e-resources do not have items attached. (Type: Academic)

[...] Sierra is a good product. However III's business pricing model and sales tactics are outrageous and it would be the reason we would not consider renewing our license. Our implementation experience was also very negative, mismanaged and marked by high turnover of the project management team assigned to our project. (Type: Academic)

I would like to switch away from Sierra because the product is poor and the customer service is terrible, but our consortium is unlikely to switch, because we have worked with III for so many years. (Type: Public)

We JUST went live on December 16th 2015, so I had a hard time providing answers based on real experience. I was out of the office for several weeks, so I haven;t really had a chance to flex my muscles with the software. So I answered what I could.... At least I know that, in comparison to Symphony, Sierra is a HUGE improvement. (Type: Public)

Although the Sierra implementation meets the letter of the contract, we have been disappointed in the pace of development. Some functions remain accessible only through the character-based system that predates Millennium. That character-based system is increasingly a security faultline, but moving the remaining functions to Sierra apparently is still years away. Similarly, moving away from Java client technology has been long promised and long delayed. (Type: Law)

In [...] , all the [...]libraries use the same ILS, so that is a big factor in our choice of ILS vendor. (Type: Academic)

As of [...] Sierra has not been installed due to security issues with our Office of Information Technology. (Type: Academic)

This is a skewed picture. 2015 was not only spent upgrading to Sierra from Millennium for the Law Library but the main institution migrated from another ILS to join us. We also added additional features and are still not totally up and running on all cylinders. I have been using III systems for over 30 years and had a high opinion of the product and services. However, I have been disappointed with some personnel used in this project and how long it has taken. (Type: Law)

[...] does not use Sierra or any other Innovative Interfaces product to manage its electronic resources. This system is shared with the University's Law Library. The responses above indicate only the opinions of [...] (Type: Academic)

We need more options and more sophisticated features in an integrated library system. INN-Reach is a big tie for us as part of a consortium. The second migration to Sierra was extremely easy. The first time we attempted it, it was a huge failure as the product was not robust enough for the size of our library system. The difference in size between the hardware requirements for Millennium and Sierra is astonishing. How will any of these systems work with BIBFRAME? (Type: Academic)

The previous number of items in our collection may have been only book titles. The above number reflects all items. (Type: Academic)

I suspect that it will not be long before Innovative is sold to someone else, possibly a major player in the electronic resources field. (Type: Medical)

The Library has been live with Sierra and Encore Duet for only two months so it is too early to be definitive in many of our answers. (Type: Academic)

Not certain that ANY product is perfectly suited yet - especially in the realm of discovery services. (Type: Academic)

We are currently working with our consortium [..] and Innovative to resolve some major Sierra latency problems. (Type: Public)