Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Sierra

2022 Survey Results
Product: Sierra		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	267	6	4	6	13	14	32	49	87	39	17	7	6.14	7
ILS Functionality	266	2	1	5	14	20	29	56	71	46	22	7	6.30	7
Print Functionality	266		2	1	3	4	19	32	68	92	45	8	7.27	8
Electronic Functionality	266	18	9	28	28	33	41	37	37	23	12	5	4.73	5
Company Satisfaction	265	8	8	11	10	19	39	51	72	34	13	7	5.77	6
Support Satisfaction	262	6	9	10	9	21	23	54	62	49	19	7	6.02	6
Support Improvement	0											0	0.00
Company Loyalty	265	18	7	8	19	22	42	29	55	35	30	7	5.61	6
Open Source Interest	228	36	18	20	17	12	38	18	26	19	14	5	4.45	5

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	274	126	45.99%
Considering new Interface	274	51	18.61%
System Installed on time?	274	0	0.00%

Average Collection size:		961637

Type	Count
Public	97
Academic	118
School	1
Consortium	17
Special	4

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	5
[2] 10,001-100,000	63
[3] 100,001-250,000	55
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	79
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	56
[6] over 10,000,001	4

2021 Survey Results
Product: Sierra		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	274	4	3	10	5	18	28	63	81	49	13	7	6.22	7
ILS Functionality	273	3	4	4	9	9	36	51	79	62	16	7	6.42	7
Print Functionality	271	1		1	1	4	18	32	70	92	52	8	7.37	8
Electronic Functionality	269	10	14	20	23	37	48	37	41	30	9	5	4.99	5
Company Satisfaction	270	6	7	8	11	21	38	45	72	46	16	7	5.99	6
Support Satisfaction	270	3	7	11	10	18	32	47	65	55	22	7	6.17	7
Support Improvement	0											0	0.00
Company Loyalty	267	22	4	9	11	21	42	38	57	39	24	7	5.63	6
Open Source Interest	256	43	20	27	21	15	33	28	24	15	18	0	4.30	4

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	279	96	34.41%
Considering new Interface	279	23	8.24%
System Installed on time?	279	0	0.00%

Average Collection size:		1263251

Type	Count
Public	104
Academic	80
School	1
Consortium	14
Special	2

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	4
[2] 10,001-100,000	65
[3] 100,001-250,000	73
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	73
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	48
[6] over 10,000,001	8

2020 Survey Results
Product: Sierra		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	290	2	2	12	19	13	33	50	94	53	12	7	6.17	7
ILS Functionality	289	1	3	9	8	16	28	52	92	61	19	7	6.45	7
Print Functionality	288	1		4	3	6	12	30	62	122	48	8	7.37	8
Electronic Functionality	291	12	10	23	32	38	43	48	46	29	10	6	4.99	5
Company Satisfaction	283	5	6	17	16	23	41	56	62	41	16	7	5.75	6
Support Satisfaction	284	2	10	15	17	14	34	67	60	41	24	6	5.93	6
Support Improvement	0											0	0.00
Company Loyalty	289	19	13	14	12	24	46	40	51	38	32	7	5.51	6
Open Source Interest	264	60	18	22	20	13	35	28	22	24	14	0	4.05	4

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	299	94	31.44%
Considering new Interface	299	35	11.71%
System Installed on time?	299	0	0.00%

Average Collection size:		760968

Type	Count
Public	124
Academic	127
School	0
Consortium	19
Special	5

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	6
[2] 10,001-100,000	77
[3] 100,001-250,000	77
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	69
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	53
[6] over 10,000,001	2

2019 Survey Results
Product: Sierra		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	393	3	6	18	20	31	59	78	102	59	17	7	5.92	6
ILS Functionality	395	2	4	13	28	27	41	75	101	80	24	7	6.18	7
Print Functionality	393	6	3	2	8	13	19	42	119	116	65	7	7.06	7
Electronic Functionality	391	13	28	35	27	42	65	63	64	43	11	5	4.96	5
Company Satisfaction	392	14	12	29	29	45	54	56	88	51	14	7	5.34	6
Support Satisfaction	391	14	13	28	37	38	64	54	81	46	16	7	5.26	6
Support Improvement	380	13	9	13	28	52	113	35	53	46	18	5	5.27	5
Company Loyalty	390	35	14	20	22	40	59	50	70	49	31	7	5.22	6
Open Source Interest	385	85	35	53	36	43	42	25	24	20	22	0	3.39	3

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	402	134	33.33%
Considering new Interface	402	62	15.42%
System Installed on time?	402	351	87.31%

Average Collection size:		823706

Type	Count
Public	145
Academic	189
School	1
Consortium	22
Special	4

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	11
[2] 10,001-100,000	104
[3] 100,001-250,000	83
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	109
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	74
[6] over 10,000,001	5

2018 Survey Results
Product: Sierra		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	437	12	3	15	16	30	50	92	120	71	28	7	6.09	7
ILS Functionality	437	3	8	5	21	27	49	76	121	93	34	7	6.38	7
Print Functionality	434	3	5	5	8	10	21	51	113	147	71	8	7.13	8
Electronic Functionality	427	29	15	30	30	53	57	78	73	39	23	6	5.06	5
Company Satisfaction	438	20	16	23	31	32	55	94	94	50	23	6	5.45	6
Support Satisfaction	435	26	17	28	31	39	70	72	87	48	17	7	5.17	6
Support Improvement	428	29	12	15	32	62	122	55	46	31	24	5	4.93	5
Company Loyalty	430	39	23	23	21	28	72	57	72	55	40	5	5.23	6
Open Source Interest	426	100	57	54	32	46	55	28	25	18	11	0	3.07	3

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	443	95	21.44%
Considering new Interface	443	57	12.87%
System Installed on time?	443	389	87.81%

Average Collection size:		811957

Type	Count
Public	187
Academic	197
School	0
Consortium	18
Special	5

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	12
[2] 10,001-100,000	108
[3] 100,001-250,000	92
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	125
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	76
[6] over 10,000,001	3

Statistics according to type and size categories

The following table presents the 2017 results according to the type and size of the library.

Sierra	all		Academic						Public						School		Consortium
			small		medium		large		small		medium		large
	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg
SatisfactionLevelILS	419	6.27	75	6.45	75	6.17	56	5.88	73	6.62	59	6.25	13	5.77	4		23	5.78
ILSFunctionality	416	6.39	74	6.61	75	6.24	55	5.73	73	6.70	59	6.47	13	5.62	4		23	6.17
PrintFunctionality	419	7.30	75	7.48	75	7.32	56	7.43	73	7.27	59	7.17	13	6.00	4		23	7.17
ElectronicFunctionality	407	5.20	72	5.46	74	5.05	55	4.73	72	5.33	56	5.16	13	4.92	4		23	4.52
SatisfactionCustomerSupport	413	5.30	72	5.93	75	5.29	57	4.95	71	5.79	58	4.76	13	4.23	4		23	4.48
CompanyLoyalty	411	5.36	73	5.56	75	5.19	56	4.80	70	6.04	58	5.17	12	5.17	4		23	4.91

2017 Survey Results
Product: Sierra		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	419	1		8	19	34	45	93	132	70	17	7	6.27	7
ILS Functionality	416	1	1	8	16	26	58	83	110	86	27	7	6.39	7
Print Functionality	419	3	1	2	2	10	21	41	127	142	70	8	7.30	8
Electronic Functionality	407	10	19	24	32	53	71	62	85	41	10	7	5.20	5
Company Satisfaction	417	3	10	34	44	38	68	64	88	52	16	7	5.42	6
Support Satisfaction	413	6	22	30	36	43	59	72	79	49	17	7	5.30	6
Support Improvement	409	20	8	23	29	51	92	47	74	35	30	5	5.27	5
Company Loyalty	411	24	12	23	33	39	70	52	71	52	35	7	5.36	6
Open Source Interest	409	110	67	57	34	37	42	23	19	9	11	0	2.65	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	422	81	19.19%
Considering new Interface	422	48	11.37%
System Installed on time?	422	376	89.10%

Average Collection size:		839431

Type	Count
Public	149
Academic	208
School	4
Consortium	23
Special	1

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	7
[2] 10,001-100,000	92
[3] 100,001-250,000	84
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	126
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	95
[6] over 10,000,001	2

2016 Survey Results
Product: Sierra		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	430	3	4	12	23	26	48	75	144	76	19	7	6.23	7
ILS Functionality	428	1	3	8	23	27	47	72	120	93	34	7	6.43	7
Print Functionality	427	3	1	2	10	15	25	46	107	148	70	8	7.16	8
Electronic Functionality	424	18	12	27	35	40	72	65	94	46	15	7	5.29	6
Company Satisfaction	427	7	18	17	37	40	60	79	99	55	15	7	5.54	6
Support Satisfaction	426	11	18	34	35	43	67	65	90	45	18	7	5.26	6
Support Improvement	421	24	10	28	28	71	104	51	50	32	23	5	4.92	5
Company Loyalty	424	22	20	15	23	44	65	60	80	54	41	7	5.52	6
Open Source Interest	425	113	69	63	36	39	44	24	22	10	5	0	2.59	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	433	58	13.39%
Considering new Interface	433	40	9.24%
System Installed on time?	433	393	90.76%

Average Collection size:		748349

Type	Count
Public	169
Academic	191
School	3
Consortium	28
Special	5

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	7
[2] 10,001-100,000	102
[3] 100,001-250,000	95
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	130
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	81
[6] over 10,000,001	1

2015 Survey Results
Product: Sierra		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	329	3	6	8	12	24	39	66	100	51	20	7	6.18	7
ILS Functionality	329	4	2	6	12	19	31	62	95	68	30	7	6.48	7
Print Functionality	326	2	3	2	7	13	8	34	93	112	52	8	7.17	8
Electronic Functionality	322	11	6	23	24	31	42	70	68	29	18	6	5.43	6
Company Satisfaction	325	8	10	21	28	30	50	56	63	42	17	7	5.45	6
Support Satisfaction	322	11	18	28	26	36	39	51	55	39	19	7	5.17	6
Support Improvement	316	29	10	25	31	40	91	28	29	20	13	5	4.48	5
Company Loyalty	323	19	9	18	24	38	48	41	53	38	35	7	5.40	6
Open Source Interest	322	93	49	44	29	36	28	12	16	8	7	0	2.54	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	334	43	12.87%
Considering new Interface	334	39	11.68%
System Installed on time?	334	293	87.72%

Average Collection size:		760283

Type	Count
Public	128
Academic	148
School	1
Consortium	21
Special	7

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	10
[2] 10,001-100,000	67
[3] 100,001-250,000	78
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	104
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	64
[6] over 10,000,001	0

2014 Survey Results
Product: Sierra		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	281	10	5	10	17	15	35	45	87	46	11	7	5.90	7
ILS Functionality	281	3	9	11	12	12	29	38	75	66	26	7	6.32	7
Print Functionality	281	2	4	7	13	12	13	20	59	102	49	8	6.98	8
Electronic Functionality	273	10	15	12	20	31	33	51	49	37	15	6	5.38	6
Company Satisfaction	281	18	13	11	14	21	39	41	66	46	12	7	5.48	6
Support Satisfaction	272	18	12	15	21	22	28	44	60	39	13	7	5.32	6
Support Improvement	271	30	11	10	22	40	62	26	33	23	14	5	4.66	5
Company Loyalty	274	26	6	15	16	24	34	32	41	37	43	9	5.52	6
Open Source Interest	279	93	54	39	19	24	24	10	9	2	5	0	2.11	1

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	288	31	10.76%
Considering new Interface	288	44	15.28%
System Installed on time?	288	249	86.46%

Average Collection size:		725997

Type	Count
Public	116
Academic	130
School	1
Consortium	19
Special	4

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	6
[2] 10,001-100,000	63
[3] 100,001-250,000	77
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	78
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	59
[6] over 10,000,001	0

2013 Survey Results
Product: Sierra		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	170	2	1	12	5	3	12	22	55	39	19	7	6.54	7
ILS Functionality	170	1	1	4	8	4	12	15	54	51	20	7	6.85	7
Print Functionality	170	1		2	1	3	8	17	23	73	42	8	7.55	8
Electronic Functionality	167	3	3	2	13	13	29	30	31	30	13	7	5.97	6
Company Satisfaction	170	3	6	6	10	8	12	11	59	37	18	7	6.34	7
Support Satisfaction	166	3	6	9	7	7	18	28	38	32	18	7	6.11	7
Support Improvement	165	6	6	5	8	16	47	21	18	18	20	5	5.55	5
Company Loyalty	169	12	4	3	4	4	22	16	37	31	36	7	6.36	7
Open Source Interest	165	54	28	25	14	13	17	5	2	3	4	0	2.19	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	173	10	5.78%
Considering new Interface	173	36	20.81%
System Installed on time?	173	160	92.49%

Average Collection size:		746241

Type	Count
Public	64
Academic	77
School	1
Consortium	13
Special	1

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	6
[2] 10,001-100,000	35
[3] 100,001-250,000	34
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	55
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	35
[6] over 10,000,001	0

2012 Survey Results
Product: Sierra		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	92	1		1	1	1	13	12	26	29	8	8	6.87	7
ILS Functionality	92	1		2	1	1	6	17	25	27	12	8	6.98	7
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	93		1	1	2	2	11	8	23	28	17	8	7.08	7
Support Satisfaction	90		1	2	1	3	5	17	21	20	20	7	7.04	7
Support Improvement	92	1	2	3	8	4	30	7	15	11	11	5	5.78	5
Company Loyalty	92	2		2	2	4	10	7	12	15	38	9	7.22	8
Open Source Interest	92	37	16	11	7	4	10	2	3	1	1	0	1.90	1

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	96	4	4.17%
Considering new Interface	96	20	20.83%
System Installed on time?	96	78	81.25%

Average Collection size:		823674

Type	Count
Public	41
Academic	45
School	0
Consortium	3
Special	1

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	2
[2] 10,001-100,000	20
[3] 100,001-250,000	21
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	24
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	26
[6] over 10,000,001	0

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

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

Comments (survey2017)

I'm currently satisfied with the tech support. In general, the techs have a fast response time and solve issues quickly. However, I'm not happy with sales. We spend months waiting for responses each time we contact sales. When I finally get a response it's usually incomplete. It's amazingly hard to buy things from them. III also appears to have eliminated the Library Rep position and our unresponsive sales person is now suppose to be our overall account manager". III has also changed the enhancement process. Unfortunately, the new process seems to focus on flashy new development instead of fixing current usability and workflow issues. We can still submit problems via tech support but there isn't a way for other libraries to look at the problem and add a "me too" vote. The new process is designed to be product agnostic with both Polaris, Sierra, and VTLS (?) libraries. Unfortunately, there's still such a wide difference in capabilities that the systems need completely different functionality to enhance their existing capabilities. I am also concerned that these enhancements are not going to be included in the core ILS and will instead require us to buy additional products (such as Decision Center). (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

I have nothing to do with purchase or implementation of the ILS system, so I'm not sure if my information is accurate on some of it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] is in the process of consolidating ILL and is undetermined at this point, but I believe they are working on adding a discovery layer but it would not be up to our library to decide. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

innovative has made major strides in customer service and overhauling their ILS products. They could simplify statistical analysis and use of Create Lists. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The current ILS was simply created for an earlier time in library services, and doesn't meet the current needs of the library nor does it work as an integrated whole with the wealth of electronic updates available today, nor does it provide the best available statistics reporting capabilities. We are considering moving to a much more uptodate and improved system with Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

This year has been a milestone year for us and Innovative Interfaces as they demonstrated exceptional goodwill and professionalism in making it possible for us to transition off their Millennium legacy system and on to their Sierra system and hosted in the cloud for the next five years with improved return on our investment and new features and functionality to help us serve our users. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Overall we are happy with Sierra. However, there is a lot of functionality that has been promised that has either not been implemented, or requires additional expenditures or requires a developer on staff that would create using APIs. These are functions that should be standard (and in the case of checking e-books out via WebPAC, promised by sales but not delivered). Also, organizationally, the company seems to be mired in chaos. Various wings of the Sales organization do not seem to communicate to one another; product development strategy unclear (Leif suddenly gone, no announcement except to announce replacement). I will say the tech support (people) is/has been great, many improvements over the last several years. Some of the tools need improvement (online web help, multiple sites for support information, articles need updating, etc.), but the people are always pleasant, responsive and seem very knowledgeable about the product. Big improvement over a few years ago. These folks are a big factor in NOT changing over to a different ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The product is OK, but the constant reorganization with our current vendor Innovative is concerning. I think the CEO is good, but who will provide leadership in product development? The sales team appears to be in constant turnover and customer support is hit or miss. I'm starting to wonder if Innovative can survive at this rate. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

The customer service and communication with anyone in the company has gone rapidly downhill. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

The company was better when it was run by the founder, and things have deteriorated since it was sold to an investment company. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Innovative has made a concerted effort in the last year to more effectively respond to customer service requests, and their response rate has definitely improved. There is still evidence, though, that the company's early balance of service and profit has shifted significantly to the profit side. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are happy with Innovative, though they are expensive and our lack of a discovery interface is a direct result of cost. We are looking into OCLC Worldshare Discovery simply because it is part of our OCLC subscription and not necessarily because we feel that it will provide us what we need. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our district financial support for a library system is limited and challenging; frequent turnover in finance means that we are continually re-educating our district CFO on why we need funding, etc. We have no discovery platform and are unable to acquire other tools that have costs associated with them. The state just allocated funding for a shared [...] library services platform (with discovery). The selection process is just getting started and we do not expect to migrate at my college for at least a few more years. However, we are holding out hope for this as a solution for the future. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Some of our dissatisfaction relates to older modules for patrons notably the program and events module and the booking module. The Encore interface is so nice that we wish all of these other modules directed to it. We went through two PM's during our 4 month migration and have lost our sales rep in Canada. We've been challenged with replacing servers under the current contract but the Support has been very helpful. The IUG and lists are great and a really valuable resource. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

My unhappiness with customer support at III is derived from our consortium support often stating, "III won't do that" in response to our requests. It is possible that III would "do that" for us and our consortium IT assumed they would not. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

We're about 2 years from a contract renewal date- so we're just beginning to consider options. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra is lacking many of the features and usability conventions we expect in modern applications. The online catalog could also use a significant update. (Library type: State; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Innovative Interface's Sales Team has been slow in responding to our inquiries this has resulted in a slower implementation of new products and in obtaining bids for newer pricing models. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Note: 832,829 bib records; 295,759 physical items. Over half of our coll'ns are now e-resources. Note: recently implemented Digital Commons (Institutional Repository) from bepress. It is not directly integrated with the ILS. Used for archival and scholarly publications. Note: We do not have the ERM module from III, so we don't have that tool to assist with billing & management of e-resources. But the online catalog handles the links to full text with no problem. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Innovative Interfaces has become a very different company. It could not handle the recent company acquisitions. The staff training and development for customer support was clearly lacking. And it was overwhelmed by the responsibility of so many libraries moving to a hosted platform. They seem to be tackling a lot of these changes and there are better results now, but expectations had dropped so low as to not be an impressive or remarkable difference. I blame the massive turnover of staff (especially how many 'old timers' were let go or encouraged to move on. It was not a good example of succession planning. They are trying to act all snazzy now as if they were Salesforce at a Dreamforce event. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

iii needs to figure out more ways to move this software into the future. Although we can do a lot more customization and reports through the use of APIs and SQL queries, it should not be on the burden of the library to provide this development work - the ILS needs to move forward on its own, as well. I also wish iii's discovery layer had more bells & whistles. No development seems to be done on it. You hear ideas from iii but development does seem to be slow. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Innovative has been making some large strides to improve upon issues within the company from the past few years. Releases have been regular and generally avoided introducing new bugs, new features are being introduced and support has greatly improved. The introduction of their new enhancements process and hints of future developments are both very promising for the near future as well. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

During that past year, we have noticed that Innovative Interfaces has applied a greater depth of technology to move towards being a 'real' competitor in ILMS, in particular integration between Innovative Interface modules other ILMS vendors re API's. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra development and frequency of upgrades is good, plus availability of APIs. Roadmap communication is good, but not always stable, which can affect planning. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

In the academic library market, it's pretty clear Sierra is way behind Alma in terms of development. However, we have a positive impression of Innovative as a company, Sierra meets most of our current requirements and its tech support has improved significantly over the last couple of years, to the point where we're really pleased with it. That's fine for the moment but we'll be reviewing the LSP market in the next couple of years and it doesn't look great for Innovative when that happens. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Software develops on a frequent basis. Well researched and implemented. API releases increase interfunctionality. New Knowledge Base and ERM functionality still not fully released and fully integrated. It will happen but currently having to record in two systems. Confusing and laborious. Excellent local company representative has made a huge difference. representing regional requirements could otherwise be ignored. Very disappointed in Encore Duet. We had to withdraw as it was so bad. Keyword searching only, no author or title or subject searches. Inconsistent results. Currently have Encore and EDS as separate interfaces so we can have an exclusive print catalogue search as well as an integrated print & eresources search. Export to EndNote from Encore in MARC format is not working which is a huge concern for an academic library. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Ex Libris has engaged in highly unethical behavior, such as saying that our consortium is leaving our current vendor, and telling the public as well as us current members false information. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Innovative Interfaces continues to offer substandard support and to nickel-and-dime us for minor requests. EBSCO's EBSCOhost/EDS interface is getting stale, and mobile support is poor. EBSCO's EDS API is quite easy to work with and powerful. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The ILS is provided by a local company after an international competition in the framework of [...] . 26 academic libraries acquired SIERRA and all catalogues migrated to only one. Subsequently, given the low number of personnel in each library things are moving but not very fast. For instance, we cannot yet create new subject headings, but work only with the existent ones. We have to keep this information written so to enter egain the system (when everything will be on place) and write the new heading. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

- (Library type: Music; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

INNovative has alleged improvements in customer service lately but, although we can't say we've seen things fall apart, I don't believe we can say we've experienced any improvement. And, in some cases, due to III's recent employee turnover, we've found a greater amount of difficult in getting responses - or accurate responses - to certain product and maintenance inquiries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The collection number is much higher than previously due primarily to EBSCO eBooks being included in the collection figure. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Only in the past 3-4 months (Summer-Fall 2017) have things started to turn around as far as customer service/account management from Innovative. We were extremely frustrated at renewal time last year, but it was too late to consider changing to another ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Overall, we are satisfied with our ILS. Sierra's functionality is quite robust, but some "modules" or features such as ERM are cost-prohibitive for us. We have no plans to migrate in the near future, but we are keeping an eye on FOLIO (and those companies who would offer services to support the software). (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our library system takes care of all interaction with Sierra. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The expense or cost of the Sierra ILS is partially why we are not more satisfied with our level of service from Innovative. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] just completed the RFP process this year. The RFP was published in January 2017 and we are in the last stages of contract negotiations. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Innovative Interfaces appears to be in dissaray. Responses to Help Desk queries vary considerably, with more in depth questions requiring many followups with unclear information from vendor. Additionally, account representatives have been unresponsive, and at times, it has been difficult to identify who actual acoount reps are. This is amply documented on the vendor's Sierra listserv where other libraries recount their own difficulties identifying and receiving responses from their reps. We have concerns that III's future is not guaranteed, a sad state of affairs from the leading ILS vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

It takes too long to load and or open on my computer. Takes too long to shut down. Do not like the running of reports for late notices etc. Once you run them, they are lost. That shouldn't be. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

We went through the RFP process this year, considered our other options and to our own surprise decided to stay with our current company. While there are a lot of issues with Sierra, other products are problematic in their own ways. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra it is not a new generation ILS just a Millennium update. Innovatve and EBSCO are not working together to have a good system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are mostly satisfied with Innovative. The search facility only offers single term searches, such as author, title, keyword, subject, ISBN, or classmark, so it's not possible to combine an author/title search, for example. But there is an advanced search facility which allows one to narrow down searching on any of these terms, so that's an improvement. Also, the list of search terms is very limited. If one wants to search for information contained in an item record, like an accession number, one has to switch into a different module to do this, on something called 'create lists', which is a bit annoying. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] consortium shared services platform under active consideration. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

most of the Sierra "release your data" to what & why? just make thing work rock solid. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

I costi di assistenza/manutenzione annua iniziano ad essere alti in seguito ai tagli alle finanze delle Università italiane, per cui stiamo monitorando con attenzione gli sviluppi relativi a ILS Open Source (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We would like to see more enhancements to the core III Sierra product. The enhancement process has been broken for several years, and the development efforts seem to have gone to new products more than the core modules. Interfacing with other products continues to be clunky. When we take the time to tell III what we need, the suggestions go to "software engineering" and never get implemented. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are satisfied with Sierra. Innovative seems to be offering the best system for us. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We migrated to Sierra in August 2016. We are a member of a state consortium and will comply with ILS changes as needed to maintain membership in this cost sharing/cost avoidance organization. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra is okay as an ILS but customer support is very poor (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Staff turnover at iii has been a cause for concern this year. Support was improving early this year but more recently has degraded. [...] has many resources that enable us to bypass the need for services from the ils vendor. Our demands for the ils are lower than normal because we develop our own discovery layer and we implement third party products readily. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are considering Koha only in relationship with one or more of the state's county law libraries. We do not have internal expertise or money to hire it for an implementation, and the largest county law library has already gotten theirs set up. Also, as a legal research library, our physical collection is far less fundamental to our daily work, and our database vendors are not even slightly interested in working with libraries to help create fully integrated discovery products interfaces to pull physical & digital collections together. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We migrated from Voyager to Sierra during the spring and early summer of 2017. We've been live on all phases of Sierra since late June of this year, thus we've only had about 5 months of experience from which to draw. That is why we left blank the question about their customer support in the last year. We use EBSCO's A-Z Publication Finder to manage all of our electronic resources and have not used the ERM in Sierra, nor do we plan to in the near future. This is because we have been using EBSCO's product for so long and are very happy with it. That is why we left blank the question about managing electronic resources through our ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

As we have an ILS and a Discovery service from different vendors, I would like to be able to answer this survey for each vendor (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

III is struggling to meet deadlines for their newer products; Wish III would innovate more as some "next gen" systems are; Having trouble connecting with the correct staff at III to solve problems; Sierra is strong in managing print resources, but still has not fully found an effective way to handle eresources; Not interested in open source ILS at the moment due to the lack of options of robust ILS to serve our mission; Used and appreciate the new Sierra app Mobile Worklists; Looking forward to exploring options opening up with the use of Sierra APIs and hopefully even more access and robustness in this area; (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Estamos implementando Encore Duet como herramienta de descubrimiento, pero aún no en producción. Muchos problemas en la configuración y la estabilidad y mal gestión de las incidencias por parte de la empresa en general en todo el proyecto (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

we started cataloging with Sierra on July (only cataloging with de Consortia). We have implemented Sierra in all our library processess for 2 weeks (cataloging, circulation, serials, acquisitions). ERM is not implemented yet. We are also implementing Discovery (but we have serious problems so maybe on January we will go on) (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra is fine and the customer support too. We're considering to acquire a new Discovery tool because Encore or Encore Duet lack of important functionalities. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Innovative has made changes to thier support in the last year in an attempt to improve, but I don't believe it has. Some problems have been fixed, but others have replaced them. It is now almost impossible to get a person on the phone. While some tickets are addressed promptly others just sit with no response for months or more. Innovative seems to be less and less interested in (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

We are now on our own version of VuFind, and no longer use Pika to any significant degree. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are a member of a consortium that uses Innovative Interfaces, so don't really have the choice to migrate unless the consortium does. Purchasing and implementing new products has continued to be difficult (non-responsive salespeople who, when they respond, don't have answers about poorly documented products and seem to have to beg to get their own organization's IT staff involved in a sales call). Our implementation of their Single Sign On product has so far dragged on for four months, and our campus IT staff find both the design of the product and the implementation process to be very bizarre and out-of-date. On the plus side, Innovative's AWS hosting service has been extremely reliable and trouble-free (albeit expensive). Before moving to hosting, our system would frequently slow down to the point of being unusable, and it could be difficult to get Innovative support to respond in a timely manner. Since moving to hosting, the slowdowns don't happen any more. It's also nice to have Innovative do software upgrades for us, since before hosting, our self-upgrades almost never went by the book and always necessitated a panicked phone call to Innovative support (generally followed by panicked waiting for them to respond). (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large)

The Sierra migration went smoothly, although there are a few remaining issues that are taking time to resolve. Customer Services remains inconsistent. Sometimes we hear back in a timely manner, other times there has to be several follow up emails and/or phone calls before getting someone to help with an issue. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Innovative continues to be in turmoil with its leadership changes. Support is intermittent and unreliable. Some of the support people try very hard to assist with problems, but management should figure out the direction of the company and then stick to a plan and the promises made for product development. It is very difficult to be the ILS administrator for a consortium when the vendor is not very supportive and reliable. I am still waiting for the account plan promised in 2016. Innovative is developing and selling Sierra for academics. Polaris is their product for public libraries. If that is true, then we should be able to migrate to Polaris for free as an upgrade. The company never promoted Sierra to our consortium as a product for Academic libraries. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

It seems that Innovative is in transition with their services. Customer service has gotten a little better but customer sales has declined. We feel we are just a pay source for Innovative and not a partner as it was in the distant past. We remain open to other ILS options but budget and priorities exclude the need to change at this time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Free stats reporting tools are very primitive. Purchased tools are expensive. Customer support has improved greatly over the past year, although can still fall short if not picked up by a knowledgeable person at the start. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Customer Service is a bit slow, but they seem to be very knowledgeable. Training was exceptional when we first signed up and as we were migrating. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Frustrated with Encore. Intend to discontinue and use Ebsco Discovery without Encore. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

I had $50,000 to spend and their sales team would simply not respond. Got kicked up to higher management who said their lawyers would draft up a quote. Gave up on that product after hearing nothing. Then tried to order a small little add-on and they require us (and therefore our legal affairs) to sign the quote first indicating that we agree with their terms (which for some reason, they cannot provide in its entirety - a copy of our original agreement). (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

We lost our rep and the III vendor doesn't seem to be in any hurry to replace her, yet we are still paying the same price. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

Sierra is generally very strong but there is a lot of new development and updates that have not happened. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We haven't seen improvements in submitting enhancement suggestions that were promised a while ago. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Vendor tries his best to satisfy the customer, but he needs to interact more with the principal vendor for all technical issues and solutions. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Product could be easier to use. The product manuals could definitely be easier to use! Wish Innovative would offer more training opportunities as well as more cost-effective ones. I think we would most likely have a more positive attitude to the product overall if we were able to more effectively understand and implement it. Plus, there seems to be on-going issues with Java each time there is an upgrade. Those who access systems files from the Admin side refuse to allow the browser they use for this to upgrade Java because that would kill access to the Admin Corner. On the positive side, support has been good overall after the bumpy start to the new Supportal. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The vendor is improving, but still has some work to do regarding support and product development. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The issue with our current system that we are using, Sierra, is that the trainer of the system lives in California and he is not able to come here and train us face to face. It's over the computer and when you email questions, it may take awhile to get a response. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Vendor was not so forthcoming in resolving some of the issues we've faced. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Likes: platfor architecture, APIs, Encore for discovery, development partnerships with other library vendors/suppliers. Dislikes: Acquisitions and Cataloguing functionality can be restrictive. Turn-offs: every piece of functionality is developed as a separate module that attracts its own cost so total cost of ownership is expensive. More focused on meeting needs of academic libraries than public libraries (at least that's how it appears in Australia). Support can be described as inconsistent or patchy - sometimes really good and sometimes not good at all. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are part of a library system. The automation system is monitored by the county. Many of the questions do not apply to us. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Customer service continues to be inconsistent, sometimes responses within a day and others languishing for months. Even bigger issue however is account reps and sales reps. Repeated emails to our account rep for even the simplest of purchases like adding a new scope takes months of babysitting and repeated demands for an update. Listserv still continues to be the only place to get consistent answers from other libraries and crowd source answers where III lacks to communicate. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Still concerned about lack of forward product development for consortia with III. It seems like their emphasis now is "compete with Summon" rather than "fix what's broken". Alma does not offer strong support for multi-types with schools and publics, so we're kinda "stuck". (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Pronto vamos a migrar a Sierra 3.3, versión que soluciona algunas incidencias existentes, incorpora mejoras y nuevas API que podrían resultarnos de utilidad. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Upgrade to Sierra, and frustrating issues comes. There are many access issues on WAM, such like iG Library, Proquest, Springer, sslibrary. Statistics Cross Tab reports fail, etc. The customer support is kind and nice. However, this is not good enough. Perhaps iii needs more development staffs concentrating on fixing issues first. Please make we users feel the maintenance fee worth it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We recently moved from BiblioCommons to Encore for our discovery layer - we are currently modifying Encore to better meet our patron and staff needs. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are now part of a national consortium which is based in the [..]. We have a contract with Innovative for the next five years. A decision to migrate to another ILS will not be ours to make. We will be consulted. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

I cannot comment on the change in customer service over the past year since I am new in this position. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

A couple of years ago we were very unhappy with III. However, they have improved, as promised, many aspects that were lacking in the ILS and Customer Service. We hope they continue to improve in all areas. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra is very complicated but lacks some basic reporting functions and the Web Management reports has a Java problem that requires us to not update Java on our web browser. There has been numerous requests for a fix to no avail. To get better reporting you have to pay for another module or learn SQL. Another basic function that is available on Polaris but not Sierra is the ability to adjust patron functions restricted by overdue fines. For example, a patron who has reached the limit of fines and is blocked cannot renew items currently checked out through the webPAC. They need a staff person to do that. E-commerce and on-line registration are other areas that are complicated and still don't work in a user-friendly way. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Support has gotten better over the past year. However, the new process for enhancements to the system seems to only focus on what the company wants to develop when there are parts that need enhancing but are being ignored. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are currently under contract to move to Alma/Primo next year, joining a large academic consortia. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The support from Innovative continues to be haphazard with some issues not being responded to for months at a time. In addition, it is difficult to get responses from sales for quotes. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Our ILS - Sierra - is robust, but huge and cumbersome for all but the most experienced staff. It could be much more user-friendly for staff. The Encore web product seems to be largely disconnected from Sierra at the tech support end (the support temas don't seem to talk to each other?) and we have little or no control over Encore's look and feel. That said, we suspect we'd have to buy some additional modules (no budget for this) to do all the things we want - we're sure they exist, but they're "extra". e.g. e-commerce options, a better mobile presence, third-party integrations, etc. Which is frustrating. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have recently migrated to Sierra. The most problematic areas were - III project management approach which lacked detail, - SSO implementation. In general - lack of Australian support so responses and actions take 24 hours, - consulting which is promoted is either webinar or very expensive. - US-centric system and print focussed system. We have not implemented their ERM but reports are that its an add-on rather than embedded functionality. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

Just migrated from Millennium to Sierra. In the process of implementing Encore. No really happy with the support from Innovative during the implementation. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

Innovative Interfaces has become simply too expensive; our system is now overkill relative to our needs; their customer support and representative responsiveness have deteriorated greatly in the last 24 months. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Because we are networked with the [...] Public Library system, we MUST use their antiquated Sierra software. This isn't designed with school checkouts in mind - we cannot use student or parent helpers for checkout due to privacy issues with the entire community. Sierra regularly goes offline and we do not have a checkout alternative that doesn't involve a pencil and Post-it notes. As long as we are networked with the public library, we cannot switch to another circulation system. (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)

Please note that for this library, we get our systems through[...] Libraries and [...] , so we have little say in customer service or changes to new systems. If [...] decides to do so, then we would likely have to. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

This library is a shared library with [...] and a regional campus of [...] . OSU Libraries controls our catalog and all the service and decisions. We are also part of [...] . If either of them decides to change, then we would change, too. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Innovative seems to have lost focus during the past 5 years. There is fairly new management and we hope they can get back on course. Enhancements have been slow and we feel they are getting behind the rest of the academic ILS vendors in their offerings, solutions, and technologies. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We couldn't expect for next years in terms of vendor policies. They always ask for additional payment when we would like add anything. This year they are bringing together all the modules and forcing us to buy all of them even we need only just one of the them. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

[...] is a centralized technology organization for a consortium of more than 40 library systems. Individual libraries throughout the county may have different impressions of the ILS system. The number of items reflects the total number of items in the countywide system. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are a [...] library and will use whatever they provide for us. We are pleased with the support they provide. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are a disappointed that products to handle media is not developed for rfid. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

While Innovative's technical support is quite good, the shoddiness of the account representatives is reflected in our lower customer service response. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our consortium works directly with Innovative. Individual libraries submit support requests to the consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are in a shared system with [...] University which means we are really tied to what they decide to do in terms of products, possible migration, discovery system, etc. We get very good service from [...] for a very reasonable price to be in the 'shared system. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The experience as an Innovative customer is getting strange. We can't seem to keep a sales person or customer relations person, for two years now we've not had a permanent contact for issues or quotes. The help desk remains hit or miss, varying from fast and accurate to just ignoring tickets, depending on the subject of the ticket. Outage response is generally good, and the core software has fewer defects with each release. The company holds webinars etc. to inform customers which seem more targeted at shareholders, and they seem to be more obsessed with finances than anything else. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

I did not answer the questions about completeness of functionality and e-resources because our system has capacities in a number of areas that we have not yet implemented due to staff turnover / training constraints. Our consortial agreement with [...] requires us to use their helpdesk exclusively. They are very responsive so we are happy with their service. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Though support was once the biggest complaint, Innovative sales now bears that torch. In four years we have been through 5 sales reps, each successively more overburdened by their management than the last. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

Our main complaint is with Customer Service. Its difficult to contact the Help Desk directly. Reponses are incomplete. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Contract negotiations within state requirements should not be, but apparently are, subject to discussion with vendor legal advisors, which slows process. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The answers were given from the point of view of the whole consortium (a group of 18 libraries), not just one member library. Planning to migrate or not strongly depends on the vendor's next version of the ILS. The ideas there are going to the direction we are interested in, but we need to see the realisation. NB! 'Approximate number of items in the library's collection' is the total number of item records from our shared catalog (holdings from 18 libraries). But not all libraries have completed the migration of data to the electronic catalog. So the actual collection is approximately 25-30% bigger. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

SIERRA is expensive and the support for a remote country like [...] require local support. Not an easy system to change configuration even for simple functionality without the vendor suppor. Expensive to connect to other machines that require SIP2 connectivity (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are in the process of developing an RFP for an III will respond to the RFP. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 9)

It is very difficult to get the parent American company to make changes to the ILS to suit [...] needs or even encompass procedures that were part and parcel of our old Horizon system. Open source ILS is not an option since we have all moved to a national integrated library system and all changes would have to reflect this. Maybe in the future that will be decided for us but I have no knowledge that this is likely (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Innovative Customer Service is terrible. They never fix anything quickly and they try to avoid talking to me. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

We are encouraged by new leadership at III, and their plans for microservices. In addition, they have improved their responsiveness to our institution's unique issues and challenges. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are planning to move to Sierra hosted this year. Previously we were a turnkey implementation. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are waiting for some functionality: - fully web-based clients for simultaneous use by all library staff - integrated e-resources management. The e-resources module currently functions more as a filing cabinet for recording information. - SMS with non-U.S. text/data providers We're very happy with the ability to manipulate our data within Sierra, including reports and global changes to records (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have been with our vendor for almost 20 years. With the annual increases in pricing even our rep said it was like we were being punished for being a long time customer. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

The staff time and upfront cost of data migration remains a critical factor in our decision to remain with our current ILS vendor, for now. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Not satisfied with quality and timeliness of service. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Biggest complaint with III is that they roll out half-baked "features" and never make improvements. Just introduce new products (also not the greatest) and expect you to pay for those, vs. fixing what they rolled out (WebPAC, AirPAC, etc.). Also, the sales division still seems to be a mess. Their tech support, however, is wonderful. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Innovative continues to struggle with support, though quality of software updates has improved in the past few years. (Library type: Law; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Overall Sierra delivers on some premises but was misleading in its open source availability. To gain the ability to modify any records, clients will need to purchase costly agreement for different APIs. The company has stopped development on products that were included in the original contracts (e.g. Encore Synergy, Express Lane, Telephone Notification System/Telephone Renewal System, Circa). They push clients to purchase third party products at prohibitive cost to the point that we opt to keep the “legacy” products for as long as they run. A turnkey contract will be voided if the client follows the recommended practice and decides to replace the server, the turnkey contract will be converted into software only contract once the hardware is replaced. While the company offers bundled pricing, its tier level (small, medium, large, very large) is based on size of circulation. Our library is considered very large because we have 4 million plus circulation to 144,000 people. As a result, the pricing level for our site is significantly higher than libraries of comparable size. To minimize annual cost increase, libraries like us are eliminating non-critical products and maintaining just the products that are core to our function. On a positive note, Innovative’s quarterly release of updates have worked well. In general, the system remains robust after an upgrade. This encourages client to move forward with the latest upgrade. The long-awaited Sierra Web client works well. Its quota of 5 licenses per site will hopefully be expanded in 2018. The fact that sierra no longer requires client to use their specific version of JAVA is a welcome relief. Staff welcome the ability to run Web Management Report without using JAVA. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

The maintenance cost is a concern. The return on the investment on the existing ILS is not great. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

While we have seen a slight improvement in customer service in 2017, getting support tickets resolved is one of our main problems with this system. Cost is another. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are in the process of evaluating the big academic library ILS players in order to prepare for a move in the next few years - but, we're finding that generally they all offer the same things. We're having a difficult time determining what might make one system work better or worse for us than another - and we're not pleased that our choices are so few! (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

Encore is highly unsatisfactory because it does only the keyword searching. However, the vendor is working to improve the Encore. And we're migrating the electronic resources management (ERM) system toa new system know as Innovative Knowledge Base (IKB) system, thus the management of the electronic resources is not so effective for now. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are part of a consortium and have not migrated to a web-based platform, so evaluation is not possible based on the most recent III technology. All tech support is done through a consortium, so there is no way to tell if inadequacies are due to III or the consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are very satisfied with our system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

On December 2017 we migrated from Millennium to Sierra. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our move to a hosted system as we migrated to Sierra from Millenium was a smart choice. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We just completed our ILS review and have decided to retain Sierra. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

ILS

Library Technology Guides is a service provided by Marshall Breeding, independent consultant, author, and speaker.