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


Statistics according to type and size categories

The following table presents the 2016 results according to the type and size of the library.

MillenniumallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS1445.14 405.28424.95214.3394.335325
ILSFunctionality1445.31 405.78425.21213.7694.895325
PrintFunctionality1446.90 406.97426.83216.9095.785325
ElectronicFunctionality1434.16 394.67424.17212.5294.445325
SatisfactionCustomerSupport1434.59 404.72414.20213.3894.445325
CompanyLoyalty1424.66 404.15414.71214.1995.225315



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 13291.67%

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



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 11766.10%
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

[...] will likely have a statewide ILS purchase approved by the legislature in the next year or two, at which point we would definitely be migrating to whatever vendor is selected by the state. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Under library profiles it might be useful to many libraries to know what other libraries are using for vendors for Proxy server and also SSL Certificate issuer. For example, we use Innovative WAM proxy still (but we're considering switching to OCLC's EZProxy and for SSL Certs we use GeoTrust. And, Thanks! (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

The Millennium product is so expensive that we have only been able to implement the most basic modules - we never used their Acqusitions or Periodicals product because of cost. For the same cos as what we currently payt, Alma will allow us this functionality, as well as having an electronic resources management system. Also, III customer service is not as good as it used to be. It has improved a bit since the last year, but response time on our issues can now take weeks where before it took days. Another reason we are happy to let this sytem go. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

I think Millennium and Sierra are excellent automation systems, the customer support is fine. We acquired other products by Innovative, such as Encore, Content Pro, but they are not very good. The functionalities are not complete and we are not satisfied about the customer support of these two products. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Frustrations regarding Innovative's technical support and pricing model compelled us to look for another ILS this year. We are in the final stages of choosing another vendor. Innovative continues to assure Millennium customers that the system will be supported for the forseeable future, however, the responses to our problem tickets and information gathered from product development webinars communicates otherwise. Marketing is geared toward getting Millennium customers on the latest release of Sierra and new feature development bypasses Millennium in favor of Sierra. Under the hood, much of Sierra's architecture seems ported directly from Millennium. Sierra still relies on Java applications (or character based client for some features), a nascent knowledge base and partially developed APIs, whereas competing systems offer a true multitenant SaaS architecture, with 100% web based access, exception based workflows, and a fully integrated (and well tested) knowledge base. Innovative has made strides toward openness in product development - they are thinking about doing away with the ineffective user group ballot and hosting quarterly product webinars now. But their business model still asks subscribers to pay for additional modules to accomplish something new, whereas competing vendors offer more built-in functionality. Sales and frontline call support is still an area of weakness due to heavy turnover. However, once your support call is escalated, second level technicians usually have the expertise to resolve problems promptly. Communication between Innovative and campus IT was a problem for us during a recent system migration. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Alma has become up in our ranking of possible new ILS / LSP since Ex Libris was acquired by Proquest. We use a lot of the 360 stuff (Serials Solutions stuff) and Summon. We're very happy with Proquest in general. When we heard about their plans to keep Summon, even though discontinuing Intota development, we were relieved. That PQ/EL will "never" sunset a product, rather let them converge gradually, sounds like a good strategy to us. At least beneficial to us. We hope that this is going to be yet another positive experience with Serials Solutions/Proquest/Ex Libris. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Customer service with Innovative has been erratic over the last year. At this point in time, however, it seems to be improving. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are looking most seriously at Sierra wanting to avoid the change management disruption and costs associated with a larger change. We believe an 'upgrade' to Sierra will give us a few years for the environment to mature. We are watching Folio and Ebsco closely. We will review our Discovery system next year since Summon is now not performing as well as in the past. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 1)

Muchas gracias (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

The [...] University Libraries will be moving to Sierra within the next year. I believe they are looking to replace Endeca, but have not heard what tools they are looking to use. The [...] does play a part in the evaluation and selection of tools. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are fairly dissatisfied with the responsiveness and quality of service provided by III, especially considering the significant cost involved. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] Library is just embarking on a complete ILS migration from the Millennium (Innovative) to Alma and Primo (Ex Libris). (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are migrating to Sierra and Implementing Encore Duet as members of [...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

With an increasingly tight budget, and fewer staff members, vendor customer support is imperative. Submitting a help ticket for tech support is inconvenient, and often not helpful, especially when our staff members don't speak the same tech language. When we don't have the technology expertise on our side, exchanging emails, or spending hours looking at FAQs and /or listserve posts that never quite address our problem adds to the frustration of finding a solution. I once finally got to speak on the phone to a customer service support person, and when we were finished, she told me that I should look at the listserve posts for help. That made me not want to call again. Open source, therefore, would not be helpful unless we could hire someone with technical expertise, coding ability, etc. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

While not quite actively investigating a new ILS yet it is on the horizon for us in the next 2-3 years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

We're currently using Millennium III, but migrating to OCLC WorldShare. At this time we have not implemented the WorldShare ILS, so my responses are about III only. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

III's support documentation is a disaster with javascript errors everywhere. They're overpriced and have not provided a level of customer support that we find appropriate for the amount of money we're spending/ and our long history with their company. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

III support is the worst I've seen. We have issues never resolved from months ago. Very unhappy. We are happily looking forward to migrating to Alama/Primo. Go live planned for June 1, 2017. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 1)

We plan to migrate to a new system in Q3 2017, and we are looking at all of the available options, including open source. If we choose open source, we will almost certainly implement with a migration/support/management partner -- on our list currently are LibLime/PTFS, ByWater Solutions and Equinox. Our biggest three considerations: - Strong data retention and access for reporting and analytics - Web-based circulation module for community outreach - Has a development path that includes features that fully integrate RDA/linked data (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Migrating from Millennium to Sierra this year within the Innovative family (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

the [...] Libraries will be migrating to SIERRA- the new platform of Millennium, in a couple of months, then our customer support will be through an agent/partner of Innovative. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Since we're using Innovative's Millennium (which is slowly being sunsetted), we're looking at getting a new ILS in the next year, but are still researching possible vendors at this point. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

we are working to upgrade to Sierra, not sure what that counts as we don't consider it a new ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

We're really only migrating to Sierra because Millennium is no longer on III's development roadmap and we've already paid for the migration. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

The College collection is managed by [...] on behalf of the College, and is currently part of the [...] . The University has made the decision to leave the consortium and the new system should be in place in June 2017 (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

The Millennium System seems very old fashioned and unresponsive. The offered upgrade (Sierra) does not appear significantly different from an operational point of view, which is why we are in the process of changing system. In particular we find reporting through the system unwieldy and the need to move in and out of different modules to carry out parts of a task is not efficient. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Overall the industry seems to lag behind other software developers, perhaps due in part to the lack of competition. Neither of the systems currently available for academic libraries (Sierra and Alma) represent value for money or appear to respond effectively to the needs of modern libraries. I am hopeful of more open source developments, and we are watching FOLIO with some interest. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 0)

Number of items referred to our print / physical collection only. The e-collection comprises mainly 377,331 e-books and 41,164 e-journals (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

We want a FRBRized interface. Also, easy tracking and batchloading of multiple sources of ebooks with different license provisions is needed. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

III has become really sloppy this year: could not get passwords re-set (to access the knowledgebase, for over 6 weeks), despite escalation. Technical tickets are opened without further follow up. III's sales presentations of Sierra leave a lot to be desired. They are far behind Ex Libris and have nothing to update their old database structure as developed for their older ILSes. It's the same structure from the early 1980s. Disappointing. Ex Libris, for our Discovery layer has not been great either. The hosted environment has not been stable. We lost October and November, with getting full exposure of our records to our users b/c of major indexing problems. We have been trying to get real-time availability to work for about a year. It had been working (after our first year of implementation), but it is now not working again consistently, for the past year (we're in our third year of having implemented this discovery layer. Reliable and robust cloud-hosting with multi-tenant solutions, is just not there, yet, for these companies. They are saying the buzz words and terms when selling the product, but are falling short on delivery. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

The Millennium is a good product before but not now. We need more free access our database. The next produce Sierra have lot of problem and less api to use. The Sierra isn't solve millennium problem and even create more. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Many of these answers are influenced by the current process of migrating to Sierra from Millennium. It has been a mess. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

Moving off III after almost 25 years. No customer service anymore and it's expensive. No innovation any more! Sad. The open source products that we looked at didn't seem to address electronic resources, which is most of our business these days. We were down to WMS and Alma. And WMS has the worst discovery interface and the sales and demo staff weren't that hot either. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

Na (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Innovative Interfaces customer service has really worsened through the years. We have been a customer with them for about 20 years, and when we first began, they were good and helpful. As the years went by, their customer service stands at almost 0 with us. We purchased the their discovery system and it never worked correctly and Innovative simply gave up trying to correct it to get it to work. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

INNOPAC Innovative is a robust system and very stable. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We will certainly be migrating in 2017 or 2018. Millennium is dated, though we didn't realize how much until we started conducting site visits and talking to vendors about more up-to-date products. Symphony is our most likely choice as migration to Blue Cloud is going to be such an easy step. We are interested in going to a non-hosted platform with some more "bells and whistles". We did not consider Sierra as we have been so unhappy with the customer service offered by Innovative. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Customer service and hardware and software issues have been very bad for the last two years, and the vendor was totally unresponsive. However, the vendor has finally taken note of our dissatisfaction and sent a VP to meet with us and discuss the issues (hardware/software/customer service/help desk and support personnel) so the issues are now being addressed. They have put on watchdog monitors for the issues as well as putting a team on the issues,we are experiencing and while to date we have no in depth answers, we have a phone call with them tomorrow, which I hope will provide some answers and solutions. If there are no solutions/answers tomorrow, my ratings would probably drop further than they are already are above. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

We are currently under contract with OCLC's WMS system (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Cost! one of the issue! (Library type: School; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Choices for a research library are very small. Our consortium has larger pulled away from Innovative and has moved to Ex Libris, which may be a strong point in its favor as we search. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are in the middle of implementation of Sierra, with a Consortium group catalog. We are also implementing EDS discovery. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Migration to Carl.X (shared ILS with [...]) will happen 2017Q2 (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

ILS