Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Millennium


2017 Survey Results
Product: Millennium Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction61 3 1 5 5 4 8 13 14 5 3 75.336
ILS Functionality61 6 6 5 11 12 11 6 4 65.546
Print Functionality61 3 2 6 7 16 18 9 86.907
Electronic Functionality61 4 4 11 6 9 10 5 5 5 2 24.154
Company Satisfaction61 3 3 2 4 14 4 12 9 7 3 45.136
Support Satisfaction60 4 3 4 8 5 7 11 9 9 64.855
Support Improvement60 3 4 7 10 15 6 6 6 3 54.885
Company Loyalty60 8 4 5 5 5 9 5 8 6 5 54.555
Open Source Interest60 17 10 5 1 7 5 6 3 4 2 03.052

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS62 4775.81%
Considering new Interface62 914.52%
System Installed on time?62 5487.10%

Average Collection size: 1001384

TypeCount
Public7
Academic39
School1
Consortium1
Special3

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00011
[3] 100,001-250,00014
[4] 250,001-1,000,00021
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,0008
[6] over 10,000,0012



2016 Survey Results
Product: Millennium Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction144 5 4 11 6 25 25 26 25 13 4 65.145
ILS Functionality144 2 6 11 14 18 24 15 30 14 10 75.315
Print Functionality144 1 4 9 11 18 44 39 18 76.907
Electronic Functionality143 12 13 16 18 21 18 14 14 13 4 44.164
Company Satisfaction143 4 8 16 14 23 26 17 23 8 4 54.665
Support Satisfaction143 6 14 13 18 13 24 20 14 17 4 54.595
Support Improvement144 11 6 11 18 27 34 18 5 12 2 54.284
Company Loyalty142 13 8 11 13 20 21 16 16 16 8 54.665
Open Source Interest143 32 24 20 10 17 7 15 6 2 10 03.042

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS144 10774.31%
Considering new Interface144 2517.36%
System Installed on time?144 13392.36%

Average Collection size: 1208642

TypeCount
Public17
Academic103
School2
Consortium5
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0001
[2] 10,001-100,00032
[3] 100,001-250,00035
[4] 250,001-1,000,00044
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00024
[6] over 10,000,0013


Statistics according to type and size categories

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

MillenniumallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1745.76 445.84555.71204.85145.2966.67325
ILSFunctionality1745.93 446.02555.82205.25145.7966.83325
PrintFunctionality1727.22 447.39537.04206.85146.7967.50325
ElectronicFunctionality1734.75 445.14544.57203.80144.2965.83325
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1715.20 435.56545.46193.53144.4366.00325
CompanyLoyalty1735.24 445.32555.29204.45134.2366.50325



2015 Survey Results
Product: Millennium Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction174 4 1 11 12 12 20 35 52 22 5 75.766
ILS Functionality174 3 5 20 14 14 35 52 20 11 75.936
Print Functionality172 2 4 5 9 20 46 56 30 87.228
Electronic Functionality173 6 10 19 20 21 22 27 30 15 3 74.755
Company Satisfaction173 7 10 10 14 16 29 30 35 16 6 75.136
Support Satisfaction171 6 12 11 11 14 28 26 39 18 6 75.206
Support Improvement170 12 12 12 12 29 52 17 13 9 2 54.305
Company Loyalty173 17 8 9 10 18 18 25 25 23 20 65.246
Open Source Interest174 57 22 27 13 16 11 12 4 6 6 02.512

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS177 11665.54%
Considering new Interface177 3620.34%
System Installed on time?177 15688.14%

Average Collection size: 898767

TypeCount
Public24
Academic126
School2
Consortium5
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00044
[3] 100,001-250,00035
[4] 250,001-1,000,00059
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00023
[6] over 10,000,0013



2014 Survey Results
Product: Millennium Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction212 2 2 12 11 11 18 41 67 43 5 76.127
ILS Functionality210 3 7 14 9 31 35 58 41 12 76.207
Print Functionality212 1 3 2 3 9 18 55 79 42 87.428
Electronic Functionality209 5 17 20 13 25 33 32 40 20 4 74.925
Company Satisfaction212 6 9 11 15 13 26 42 48 35 7 75.616
Support Satisfaction210 3 13 13 16 10 28 30 51 41 5 75.606
Support Improvement203 10 6 15 17 24 68 15 22 17 9 54.855
Company Loyalty210 13 12 9 7 20 28 20 36 36 29 75.686
Open Source Interest208 57 24 37 17 18 22 6 11 6 10 02.802

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS216 12256.48%
Considering new Interface216 6128.24%
System Installed on time?216 19992.13%

Average Collection size: 829001

TypeCount
Public41
Academic145
School1
Consortium6
Special4

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00038
[3] 100,001-250,00042
[4] 250,001-1,000,00086
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00032
[6] over 10,000,0012



2013 Survey Results
Product: Millennium Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction248 2 4 4 10 11 22 50 75 55 15 76.447
ILS Functionality247 1 1 3 11 13 24 52 67 56 19 76.537
Print Functionality247 1 1 4 11 23 62 87 58 87.558
Electronic Functionality246 7 11 11 21 25 43 43 45 27 13 75.356
Company Satisfaction248 4 5 7 11 17 35 51 51 50 17 66.096
Support Satisfaction247 2 12 11 10 17 36 36 64 47 12 75.916
Support Improvement246 9 10 11 13 26 76 32 37 20 12 55.185
Company Loyalty248 11 8 7 13 13 39 29 46 43 39 76.047
Open Source Interest244 59 43 19 27 18 32 14 13 7 12 03.003

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS254 11645.67%
Considering new Interface254 8332.68%
System Installed on time?254 23190.94%

Average Collection size: 817421

TypeCount
Public51
Academic140
School1
Consortium6
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0005
[2] 10,001-100,00041
[3] 100,001-250,00060
[4] 250,001-1,000,00081
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00045
[6] over 10,000,0013



2012 Survey Results
Product: Millennium Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction393 2 3 13 7 19 29 64 118 97 41 76.687
ILS Functionality393 1 2 7 9 24 32 58 117 103 40 76.747
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction389 2 7 15 14 24 32 65 103 85 42 76.447
Support Satisfaction385 3 8 16 13 17 34 78 96 76 44 76.397
Support Improvement381 10 4 7 19 37 140 55 47 39 23 55.515
Company Loyalty388 17 7 14 13 16 39 44 71 80 87 96.497
Open Source Interest385 105 49 45 33 35 34 32 19 15 18 03.002

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS399 16942.36%
Considering new Interface399 10025.06%
System Installed on time?399 36090.23%

Average Collection size: 868588

TypeCount
Public108
Academic217
School5
Consortium22
Special8

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00010
[2] 10,001-100,00072
[3] 100,001-250,00076
[4] 250,001-1,000,000133
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00073
[6] over 10,000,0013



2011 Survey Results
Product: Millennium Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction454 7 2 4 10 13 37 57 141 128 55 76.887
ILS Functionality451 3 3 5 7 18 29 67 144 116 59 76.927
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction453 6 6 16 16 22 49 58 111 122 47 86.507
Support Satisfaction451 5 8 5 9 30 52 68 114 115 45 86.557
Support Improvement437 4 5 8 14 40 178 61 56 50 21 55.635
Company Loyalty452 13 5 16 18 24 52 50 79 93 102 96.557
Open Source Interest447 100 48 64 32 35 52 37 30 21 28 03.413

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS458 14331.22%
Considering new Interface458 11124.24%
System Installed on time?458 42091.70%

Average Collection size: 859254

TypeCount
Public146
Academic238
School5
Consortium22
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0008
[2] 10,001-100,00093
[3] 100,001-250,00083
[4] 250,001-1,000,000155
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00079
[6] over 10,000,0013



2010 Survey Results
Product: Millennium Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction388 1 2 4 8 12 21 40 124 121 55 77.117
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction387 3 4 13 8 19 30 61 106 99 44 76.667
Support Satisfaction386 1 4 5 18 21 30 61 106 95 45 76.677
Support Improvement381 4 4 6 15 39 146 38 59 40 30 55.725
Company Loyalty383 19 11 11 13 17 40 39 75 69 89 96.407
Open Source Interest383 86 35 53 33 27 48 23 28 19 31 03.533

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS395 7418.73%
Considering new Interface395 14436.46%
System Installed on time?395 36391.90%

Average Collection size: 780971

TypeCount
Public142
Academic183
School4
Consortium20
Special9

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0002
[2] 10,001-100,00081
[3] 100,001-250,00077
[4] 250,001-1,000,00078
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00058
[6] over 10,000,0012



2009 Survey Results
Product: Millennium Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction342 1 7 10 31 32 108 102 51 77.137
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction341 1 4 13 8 17 41 47 92 71 47 76.587
Support Satisfaction338 2 2 11 15 16 28 68 83 71 42 76.537
Support Improvement315 6 3 9 8 12 136 50 47 19 25 55.655
Company Loyalty339 14 10 12 15 21 42 28 55 59 83 96.337
Open Source Interest339 69 47 36 27 30 41 20 29 18 22 03.513

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





2008 Survey Results
Product: Millennium Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction294 5 7 10 14 37 85 100 36 87.087
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction293 4 1 12 14 15 25 45 84 63 30 76.437
Support Satisfaction291 2 4 7 11 14 35 43 88 64 23 76.447
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty287 7 6 13 10 13 28 27 61 68 54 86.537
Open Source Interest290 47 39 42 29 22 35 24 18 15 19 03.573

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS302 258.28%
Considering new Interface302 10735.43%
System Installed on time?302 28193.05%





2007 Survey Results
Product: Millennium Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction253 1 4 5 8 14 22 74 88 37 87.167
ILS Functionality0 00.00
Print Functionality0 00.00
Electronic Functionality0 00.00
Company Satisfaction319 2 3 12 11 20 33 47 88 73 30 76.457
Support Satisfaction316 2 7 8 19 19 34 60 87 57 23 76.207
Support Improvement0 not applicable
Company Loyalty305 14 11 14 5 12 46 21 63 67 52 86.247
Open Source Interest320 72 34 58 28 33 38 18 12 10 17 03.072

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




2017 : gen: 5.33 company 5.13 loyalty 4.55 support 4.85

2016 : gen: 5.14 company 4.66 loyalty 4.66 support 4.59

2015 : gen: 5.76 company 5.13 loyalty 5.24 support 5.20

2014 : gen: 6.12 company 5.61 loyalty 5.68 support 5.60

2013 : gen: 6.44 company 6.09 loyalty 6.04 support 5.91

2012 : gen: 6.68 company 6.44 loyalty 6.49 support 6.39

2011 : gen: 6.88 company 6.50 loyalty 6.55 support 6.55

2010 : gen: 7.11 company 6.66 loyalty 6.40 support 6.67

2009 : gen: 7.13 company 6.58 loyalty 6.33 support 6.53

2008 : gen: 7.08 company 6.43 loyalty 6.53 support 6.44

2007 : gen: 7.16 company 6.45 loyalty 6.24 support 6.20

Comments

Library currently owns sierra (purchased prior to product release) but has had difficulty implementing it. If this is not successful we will likely begin the process of considering different paths. (Type: Academic)

Innovative Customer Support is good. However, their Sales has deteriorated significantly in the past year. It is very difficult to get a response from them. (Type: Academic)

LMS choice going forward will largely depend on our Council amalgamating with other Councils in the coming year. We will aim to share the same LMS across all libraries. (Type: Public)

Do not feel III has done enough to address new workflows resulting from increased use of electronic resources as well as traditional print materials. (Type: Academic)

We are in the middle of the tendering process so we are under confidentiality terms right now. (Type: Academic)

As a medical library we have moved to mostly electronic resources. The Millennium really doesn't handle electronic very well. Our users use the catalog less and less. We are waiting for the next version of Intota that is supposed be able to replace the ILS functions. (Type: Medical)

Millennium, and our ILS server currently located on campus, are reaching end-of-life status. We will need to migrate to Sierra (Innovative) or another ILS system. I have seen two demos of OCLC WMS and I'm not overly impressed, so far, with the product. (Type: Academic)

Our library took waaaay too long to consider migration, and our current ILS no longer meets the needs of our patrons or our collection. We are looking at a migration within the next 2 years, partly since Millennium will not be supported much longer and also because it's no longer 2007. We have only just implemented Summon in the last week (still in beta testing, really) and are considering building our next system around Summon or a similar discovery service. OCLC WorldShare would be my first choice, but if Summon proves to deliver what it promises, we could easily go with a simple (but contemporary) ILS and integrate it into discovery services rather than migrate to an entirely different LSP. (Type: Academic)

Innovative Interfaces: holding your library's data for ransom. As a for-profit company, I rate them just slightly better than airlines in terms of customer hostility. It doesn't matter the size or reputation of your library, Innovative's primary goal (other than making a profit, which in and of itself is not inherently evil) is to obfuscate and hide as much functionality as possible. (Type: Academic)

We are hosted on iii with an application service manager who handles almost all support issues. Customer service is great our sales rep not so much. (Type: Academic)

We manage print journals and electronic resources using True Serials and 360 Link, so it is hard to measure the usefulness of our ILS in this area. W may be forced to move to OpenSource if Millennium support is withdrawn in the next 3-5 years. Not sure if your items in the collection number is only print. We are increasingly using electronic journals and book collections. (Type: Academic)

We are looking for a solution that integrates the ILS with the Discovery interface. (Type: Academic)

III has improved customer service and appears interesting in working to keep current customers using their product(s), but cost is a major issue. (Type: Public)

[...] (Type: Academic)

We have stayed with Innovative and Millennium for nearly 15 years. The functionality of their product has served us well. However, Innovative is a very expensive ILS and we no longer feel like we can bear the annual costs. Features which we think ought to be offered as enhancements end up being expensive new modules that we have to purchase - usually with an additional increase to annual maintenance. Innovative would like us to move to Sierra but migration costs are also prohibitive. We feel like Innovative is pricing us out of being able to continue with their product. Innovative support has decreased dramatically. When you call the Help Desk you often have to leave a message instead of talking to a real person. Follow-up on open tickets can be slow. We had a major server crash and were down for nearly 4 1/2 days because Innovative personnel could not figure out the problem and was slow in shipping out replacement parts. Communication between the library and the customer sales rep is not always clear leading to misunderstandings which could be avoided. (Type: Public)

Dissatisfaction with our current ILS vendor reached a tipping point this year when we could not implement an expensive module because our hardware was out of warranty, but still had to pay for the module anyway due to contractual language. We have a strategic initiative to investigate ILS alternatives. We are also strengthening our in house technology skills and building close relationships with campus IT. This could allow us to implement an open source ILS in the future. I would like to see our next ILS be built around the most accurate, complete e-resource knowledge base we can find, whether this means going open source or choosing a proprietary vendor. Within the next year or two we hope to reach a decision. (Type: Academic)

The [...] may soon (1-2 years) have an opportunity to contract with a vendor for a statewide ILS offering. If this happens, many/most of the California community colleges would likely be migrating to the chosen vendor, including our college. (Type: Academic)

Encore is not as reliable as we would hope. From time to time the processes which import records and item status data from Millennium stall unexpectedly and need to be restarted. We may upgrade to Sierra, but from what we've seen, the back-end functionality is very similar to Millennium and not as up-to-date as we would like. (Type: Law)

While our current system is III's Millennium, we have signed a contract for Alma-Primo and are in the beginning stages of migration, with expected completion May 2016. (Type: Academic)

Above figure represents both campus libraries. (Type: Academic)

Support for Millennium is diminishing , we are now in the middle of a migration to Sierra and we expect improved support when we have completed the migration. (Type: Academic)

Innovative Interfaces is done. Wonder if EBSCO will buy them out? I have concerns about the venture capital company that own SirsiDynix and it doesn't appear ProQuest has a clue what to do with their Intota "product" or I should say enhanced Summons software. Seems like OCLC WMS is the only viable choice at the moment. It's interesting how the ILS industry has conflated in the last year. (Type: Academic)

Bywater support for Koha is 25% that of Millennium with no huge license fee. Staff client also entirely browser based. (Type: Medical)

We're on Innovative's Millennium. It is a terrible, unfriendly, and outdated system that does almost nothing well. We're just now researching discovery layers. Summon is a frontrunner as it performed very well in our testing and has a decent reputation. EDS and Primo look OK. Encore was eliminated quickly as it performed poorly in our testing. OCLC is pushing Worldshare which makes us uncomfortable moving to their discovery layer while not being ready to migrate ILS. (Type: Academic)

We are migrating to Sierra within a year. The only reason we are doing this is not because III or Sierra is good, it's because there are no other viable alternatives. Pennsylvania's implementation of OpenILS is incredibly limited and development has been too slow for us to take SPARK seriously. (Type: Consortium)

The Library is currently involved in an RFP process to identify and select a new ILS platform. We are relatively happy with our current ILS, but we have also been with that vendor for about 20 years. That vendor has recently introduced their "next generation" product so a major change is inevitable in the not too distant future. There have been some significant developments in the ILS marketplace during the past few years. Most of the major vendors have introduced new platforms that are primarily cloud-based SAAS services. It seems like an appropriate time to review our ILS options in a more comprehensive manner. (Type: Academic)

We wish our ILS and discovery service did a better job of putting the same book and e-book next to each other in the browse list. All too often a print book will be listed several entries away for the electronic version of the same title. (Type: Academic)

Upgrade to the latest version of Millennium will improve the ratings given here. (Type: Academic)

We get frustrated with Innovative Interfaces requirement to purchase add-on modules for functionality we think should come out of the box (i.e. mobile friendly interfaces, SMS alerts, etc.) (Type: Academic)

As a very specialized library, a discovery interface would only hinder our efforts to effectively serve our patrons. We have no interest whatsoever in obtaining one. (Type: Music)

The biggest barrier to signing up for Sierra is cost. The upgrade is very expensive and would be largely invisible to users, though it would be beneficial to staff. The cost is very high for something that is almost totally behind the scenes. We currently have products related to discovery from several vendors. I would like to select a vendor and integrate some/all of these products (link resolver, ILS, A-Z list, ERM, etc.), but it's challenging to find both time and money to take on a project of that magnitude. (Type: Academic)

I think academic medical libraries like us are in a spot regarding ILS; ILS is less important to us than to most other large academic libraries. Electronic resources are where we spend our collections budget and ILS , particularly older ILS like Millennium are not optimized for end user access to electronic resources. For the few books we buy and circulate, Millennium works OK, we know how it works for the most part and we've had it for so long it is second nature. For us, to implement (and even take the time to consider) product selection and migration is to shift our organizational focus at least temporarily to areas that are out of proportion with our library's day to day and strategic goals. Yet, due to aging ILS hardware we are grappling with these questions, and find ourselves wondering just how to stop everything else we are doing (for 4 months, or whatever) and just deal with this one issue. Although open source products like Koha could save us a lot of money, I think we acknowledge that end users' discovery of electronic resources is the most important consideration for us, and that is why we're looking very closely at Alma and Worldshare. (Type: Medical)

We have become very dissatisfied with the support service. Minor questions go unanswered, and larger problems take longer than they should to be resolved. Our library has been required to do much more follow up and elevating of problem status than should be necessary. (Type: Special)

Our ILS server is hosted through a third party organization. If it was hosted by the ILS company or brought back to campus, the outlook on customer support would likely be different. (Type: Academic)

The Innovative Interfaces should be more concerned about their customers in Taiwan. (Type: Academic)

Currently waiting on an investigation of local consortia that is looking into next generation library systems. Will move forward on new system investigation once that is completed. (Type: Academic)

We like the Intota ERM and knowledge base for eperiodicals. World share seems better for ebooks. Assessment is better by OCLC Intota is behind in dealing with acquisitions and reserves. (Type: Academic)

For the most part we, at this library, are very satisfied with Millennium and with Innovative. However, we are part of a larger [...] higher ed. consortium of public institutions and we issued an RFP for a shared new system among the 17 libraries. The consensus was that ExLibris Alma/Primo was a more technologically advanced (true multi-tenant architecture, etc.) product and that resulted in a decision to go with Ex Libris. It remains to be seen if this was a good decision or not. Implementation has not yet begun and I anticipate that it will be complicated. I also hope that from the patron perspective it will work well. I believe the IT concerns drove the decision. (Type: Academic)

It doesn't look like there are a lot of choices for a new ILS. The book circulation in our library has dropped significantly in the recent year. The new generation of ILS cannot be a system that is only good at managing print resources. I am concerned that the cost of commercial products will keep increasing. I am hoping that open source ILS can eventually manage both print and electronic resources well. (Type: Academic)

Migration to our vendor's new platform is desired but not likely within the next year. (Type: Government Agency)

Our collection in Millennium is over 300,000 records because we have loaded MARC records for Ebsco ebooks, Films on Demand streaming videos, etc. The 75,000 number is accurate for physical holdings. (Type: Academic)

Because we are part of a consortium, we have not participated in an LMS vendor selection process. This will be conducted by [...]. (Type: Museum)

Plan to migrate to Sierra soon. EDS very close to launch. Millennium impressions: WAM proxy rewrite need improvement. WebPAC not responsive. We also have Boopsie for mobile users. (Type: Academic)

We've been HAPPILY with Innovative from the early 1990's. Upgraded to Millennium early 2000's. But we're having a hard time justifying upgrading to Sierra which requires basically $40,000+ migration cost plus cost of a 2nd server. Those hosted servers would cost $17,000 yearly for starters. We already pay $40,000+ annually in "maintenance". That is a LOT. Soon paying $60,000. annually to stay III is feeling crazy and indefensible. Great business model for them, NOT for higher ed. that is inching towards unaffordableness/unsustainability. We need radically better pricing and something more rewarding than Sierra! Change may be painful but what doesn't kill us will make us stronger. ALSO: Hey Ebsco, merge with Innovative! THANKS MARSHALL! (Type: Academic)

We consider migrating to a new ILS that can both meet our technological need and budget condition. Sierra is a bit too expensive for us as a small academic library. (Type: Academic)

Library has been with same vendor since 1994 - is looking to bring itself up-to-date as to the current state of the ILS and will be considering migration to another vendor system over the next 2 years. (Type: Academic)

We may not have a choice in migrating to Sierra, although I don't want to leave Millennium. (Type: Law)

ILS