Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Sierra


2017 Survey Results
Product: Sierra Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction274 1 6 15 13 29 61 92 49 8 76.317
ILS Functionality273 1 7 15 13 33 52 77 59 16 76.387
Print Functionality274 2 2 1 5 10 24 87 98 45 87.378
Electronic Functionality265 7 15 15 20 30 45 39 60 29 5 75.216
Company Satisfaction273 2 7 20 29 21 43 43 64 38 6 75.486
Support Satisfaction272 3 16 17 23 28 38 52 52 35 8 65.336
Support Improvement270 13 5 14 20 32 62 35 48 26 15 55.265
Company Loyalty271 13 10 16 17 23 40 39 56 37 20 75.496
Open Source Interest269 67 48 34 21 27 30 17 15 5 5 02.712

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS276 5519.93%
Considering new Interface276 3512.68%
System Installed on time?276 24689.13%

Average Collection size: 819235

TypeCount
Public86
Academic128
School1
Consortium16
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00058
[3] 100,001-250,00059
[4] 250,001-1,000,00088
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00057
[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.

SierraallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS4306.23 726.63746.09426.29906.29625.84125.423286.39
ILSFunctionality4286.43 716.73736.32426.12906.54626.32126.003286.43
PrintFunctionality4277.16 717.55747.31427.52886.83626.79127.083287.14
ElectronicFunctionality4245.29 695.46745.20425.55895.06625.08115.823275.04
SatisfactionCustomerSupport4265.26 716.03745.07425.60895.51604.63123.503284.79
CompanyLoyalty4245.52 715.94725.10425.29895.66605.27124.583286.04



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

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS433 5813.39%
Considering new Interface433 409.24%
System Installed on time?433 39290.53%

Average Collection size: 748349

TypeCount
Public169
Academic191
School3
Consortium28
Special5

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



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

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

Average Collection size: 760283

TypeCount
Public128
Academic148
School1
Consortium21
Special7

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



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

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

Average Collection size: 725997

TypeCount
Public116
Academic130
School1
Consortium19
Special4

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



2013 Survey Results
Product: Sierra Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction169 2 1 12 5 3 11 22 55 39 19 76.557
ILS Functionality169 1 1 4 8 4 11 15 54 51 20 76.867
Print Functionality169 1 2 1 3 8 17 23 72 42 87.558
Electronic Functionality166 3 3 2 13 12 29 30 31 30 13 75.986
Company Satisfaction169 3 6 6 10 7 12 11 59 37 18 76.357
Support Satisfaction165 3 6 9 6 7 18 28 38 32 18 76.137
Support Improvement164 6 6 5 7 16 47 21 18 18 20 55.565
Company Loyalty168 12 4 3 3 4 22 16 37 31 36 76.387
Open Source Interest164 53 28 25 14 13 17 5 2 3 4 02.202

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS172 105.81%
Considering new Interface172 3620.93%
System Installed on time?172 15992.44%

Average Collection size: 747212

TypeCount
Public64
Academic77
School1
Consortium13
Special1

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00035
[3] 100,001-250,00034
[4] 250,001-1,000,00054
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00035
[6] over 10,000,0010



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

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS96 33.13%
Considering new Interface96 1919.79%
System Installed on time?96 7982.29%

Average Collection size: 823674

TypeCount
Public41
Academic45
School0
Consortium3
Special1

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


2 Responses for Sierra in 2011

0 Responses for Sierra in 2010

0 Responses for Sierra in 2009

0 Responses for Sierra in 2008

0 Responses for Sierra in 2007

2017 : gen: 6.31 company 5.48 loyalty 5.49 support 5.33

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: 6.55 company 6.35 loyalty 6.38 support 6.13

2012 : gen: 6.87 company 7.08 loyalty 7.22 support 7.04

Comments

The Sierra platform has some serious deficiencies in holds and requests functionality with quite a few known bugs. For a library with a very large business in requests and holds, this adversely affects us. Also - the support from the company is extremely uneven with calls remaining unanswered for 3 months or more and redirects from support sometimes to query the customer list serv for answers to questions about their own product. The core functions of an ILS work fine but lack of true SQL access and poor support are primary reasons for my low scores. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

It seems like Innovative has been in reorganization mode for about 5 years. We need stabilization and some strong product releases. Their API is getting powerful but they need to start innovating again. They lost their competitive edge during the past 5 years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Recently implemented III's NCIP responder from ILLiad (Atlas Systems). We are very satisfied. Will implement NCIP with WC Navigator in December 2016. Have set up GOBI API between YBP (Gobi) and Innovative. This is not working correctly. One short falling regarding Innovative is lack of clearly communicating its Technical Specifications for APIs to other vendors. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Little frustrated with some really long-standing issues that have been unresolved for over a year. Clear the Holdshelf is one example. The fixes are due soon, but the wait has been significant. Otherwise, their performance on most of our issues has been okay. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra continues down its evolutionary path of development, picking up pace this year to good effect. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our system is a disappointment. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

The Sierra ILS report management system is far more complicated with its "Create Lists" than The Library Corporation's reports management program. Staff has had great difficulty in generating reports. However, the consortium office help has been responsive to issues and usually been able to resolve things. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Vendor seems to be moving towards providing back end data structure and pushing out the burden of programming (via APIs) to the clients. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We like our combination of vendor supported ILS (Sierra) and our own version of VuFind (Pika). The challenges of a multi-type consortium are always with us, and this limits our choice of systems to only those that are good enough for academic, public, AND school libraries. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra is a tragic ILS because it has so much potential, but it just doesn't work. There are workflows that have been problematic for years that are just never addressed. Development is excruciatingly slow. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 1)

ILS customer service is terrible, tickets linger with no improvements or solutions made in a reasonable time frame, functionality of features is missing. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are happy with our ILS. The consortium is looking into a discovery layer, but we don't have the details at this point. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are in the middle of migration from Millennium to Sierra and have found the implementation team to be very helpful with quick response time. Overall I feel the customer service at Innovative, though far from perfect, continues to improve each year but still has room for improved training to offer consistent service. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The 175,192 number includes Digital Titles. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Despite some very recent attempts at improved communication of product roadmaps, Innovative has long ago lost what little goodwill they had with us. Unless things greatly improve within the next year or so (which I very much doubt), we will begin looking at migrating to a new system in the year before our contract is up. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We became a circulating member of our library consortium on October 20, 2016 and began using Sierra for circulation on that date. So, we're still getting our feet wet. Our consortium deals directly with Innovative. The individual libraries do not. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Service Desk support has been very poor compared to previous vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Sierra is an upgraded version of Millenium. It still has some of the slightly irritating features of Millenium but is at least familiar. (Library type: Museum; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Support from Innovative has generally improved over the last year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I have been trying for at least 4 months to get someone from Innovative to talk on the phone with our campus IT about the possibility of moving to cloud hosting for our Sierra system. Innovative heavily advertises cloud hosting, but when our only barrier to purchase is a one-hour phone meeting between a tech at Innovative and our campus IT staff, this appears to be impossible to achieve. Unfortunately this matches our past experience with Innovative sales, and that of others (I remember being in an Innovative Users Group forum panel session with Innovative staff where an audience member stood up and asked, "How many months is it supposed to take to get a quote for our migration to Sierra?" The Innovative staff member present was very apologetic, but I bet she's still waiting for her quote.) Support (once you've already purchased and implemented a product) is still hit or miss: some tickets are answered quickly, others (even one I had that was marked "critical") taking many months for a first response. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are migrating in Feb 2017 (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)

El nuevo portal de soporte de III no funciona correctamente, a veces no se pueden enviar por este medio sino por email. El tiempo de respuesta de las incidencias a veces no es rápido y las explicaciones no son suficientes. El sistema no se integra con el sistema de préstamo de libros electrónicos de Xebook y ODilo. El paso de las funcionalidades a Sierra web es lento. La salida de los productos como MYLIBRARY no llega a Europa al mismo tiempo que en Norte América y sólo sale para el sistema operativo IOS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

items include books, bound periodicals, and audio-visual resources but not electronic access (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We recently added a second library to our system. The migration/implementation team assigned to our case was top-notch and highly supportive in getting the work done on time and answering all our questions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

III is one of the top ILS companies with a full functioning robust ILS. They are slow to innovate and implement new functionality. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Innovative seem to be struggling after going public, then acquiring Polaris and Voyager. To the extent that I have wondered about the viability of the company over the past year. They do not seem capable of distributing an update that doesn't have a major bug included. Our hold shelf functionality doesn't work since the last update with no solution in sight as an example. My management is asking me to price and investigate other ILS systems after a server crash this year in which III handled the whole restoration process very badly - we lost 2-3 days of extra downtime unnecessarily and a weeks worth of data. We are still recovering. The server crash was not their fault but they did not put the correct tech people in charge of the rebuild immediately and they had never told us when we went to the new backup system with Sierra that the backup was partial each day (or we would have completely changed the way we did backups). They scrambled for a couple of days instead of getting us back up on our feet as you would expect. So my view of III right now is still tainted (crash happened in January 2106). (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

III changed their customer support portal and system. Now if you call in, even with an emergency, the phone support staff will basically fill out the same online form I can fill out myself and say someone will get back to you soon. So, there's no point to calling in. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Innovative's software cannot handle our consortial environment well at all. The way it configures holds has caused huge increases in our statewide inter-library delivery service, which cannot handle the volume. As a result, our customer service has suffered greatly, and our circulation has declined. Innovative promised a "fix" for these holds issues (which will only partially fix the problems), but after two years, we still haven't seen any sign of the fix. I wish we had stayed with SirsiDynix. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Because we're part of a larger affiliated library system we don't get to call the shots for our library. We sometimes have to accept concepts that we have had no decision making for. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Statistics reporting functions are currently broken and in review with the programmers, so getting good numbers out of the system is currently a challenge. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

III is not a responsive vendor. They do not have basic functionality in their products, seem to be doing no R&D on the various products they offer, their accounting department makes mistakes with nearly every bill, and their customer service department is horrific. They claim they have reduced their # of open tickets. At least in our case they did so by arbitrarily closing multiple cases without actually resolving the issue or communicating with us. We are very dissatisfied with III. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Our impression is that Innovative burned up a lot of customer goodwill by releasing Sierra before it was finished. Also, the previous management seemed to be focused on making the company's books look good for resale, rather than on improving its products. The current management inspires more confidence in that respect. We intend to review our situation in 2018, but for the moment we're concentrating on communicating with Innovative to help them improve the product. We don't like Ex Libris' "walled garden" approach to library services platforms and don' t see a credible open-source alternative yet, so are happy to stick with Innovative for the moment. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our Director feels that Innovative Sierra is at the top of the game and that Ex Libris Alma is at a similar level. III stronger in managing print material; Ex Libris may be a little better at handling electronic materal. Our Director is not happy with Summon but believes no competitor is any better at the moment. She feels google scholar would be the best if the coverage of our e-book holdings were as good as the e-journal coverage. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

trying to work out lack of communication about needed server upgrade/replacement and then trying to move to hosted has been an unhappy experience, taking III 4-6 weeks every time we're waiting for them to respond! Lots of automated "out of office" emails. One email from rep 4 days after we sent requested info "when are you sending the info?" (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We've had a difficult year regarding support from Innovative. They have recognized that are are making efforts to improve the situation. I'm hopeful that this is possible and that we will go back to getting the level of support we've received in the past. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

-Some of their tech support teams have not been very good over the past year. Their Circulation support is good, but hardware and server support has been abysmal. -We have gone thru multiple sales reps over the past two years. That is usually not a good sign. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Feel like they launch half-finished products and then don't support them/improve them, move on to the next thing (mobile worklists, etc.). Seem more focused on their "process" vs. making product work the way majority of customers want it. Also nickel and dime you on everything. Since III owns everything, not huge incentive to switch to another vendor when contract up in 2019, at least at this point. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I came into this position only recently and had only experienced our particular ILS as an end user up until then. Having been a systems administrator for another ILS (SD Horizon) I was surprised at how unfriendly Sierra is and the lack of support from the company. In addition, the ILS vendor charges for everything....including a substantial amount for a re-index, which I requested so staff could at least search by series. This is just a small example of what limitations III has as a vendor and I could expand if asked. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 0)

Innovative continues to monetize all development... recently we discovered a need for their Patron Authentication API. Many vendors include access to APIs with their product, but Innovative asks thousands up-front and nickles and dimes for yearly "maintenance". We also had a bad experience with their "Decision Center" product--they were unable to get it working (though they barely tried) and we asked for a refund, which they eventually gave. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our implementation to Innovative Interfaces Inc.'s Sierra is recent. So, we aren't looking to migrate to another ILS in the near future. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

With the many changes taking place in the marketplace we are looking at what is and will be available. To stay with Sierra will be a conscious decision that is made, once we have surveyed what is out there. The company seems to have regained it's direction with some changes in leadership which is encouraging. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

III seems to have lost focus and momentum, and is very expensive for what we need. Encore + EDS never really took off, and is used but not beloved on this campus. Insofar as we have such constrained resources, we have to consider other ILS options that will be equally functional but cheaper than III hosted Sierra. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have 92,669 physical items and 138,564 bibs in our system. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Functional, but overpriced. Sluggish customer support. New releases are somewhat problematic with slow response to fix issues. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

So far Sierra has been fine. Ebsco Discovery Service works much better than Primo. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We dropped Summon this past year because the product did not meet our expectations and customer service was wretched. In my opinion, Summon 2 is an unfinished product and we were used as beta testers. It proved more frustrating and confusing to my students. While I like the idea of a discovery service for my patrons, I am hesitant to jump into another product. Cost is also an issue. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

My general impression of Innovative is that they have attempted and at least partially succeeded in improving their customer relations since the new president took over. I was impressed with his speech at the 2016 IUG Conference. Technically, they have had some trouble with their new support ticketing system (Supportal) which makes it frustrating when trying to contact them with an issue. While they seem to be moving in the same direction as OCLC and ProQuest, they are noticeably behind in discovery service development. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Management changes have affected the customer service of Innovative. It seems the company is more invested in merging three companies instead of providing quality customer service. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Assistenza efficiente, tempestiva nelle risposte. Azienda orientata ad un continuo aggiornamento e attenta alle nuove tecnologie (Linked data, RDA, ecc.) 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)

Sierra seems to be more suited to an academic library environment rather than public. This leads to some issues with regards to its operation in that what staff expected from previous LMS is not really available in the current LMS. The concept of a 'guarantor' is foreign to Sierra. This is an adult who is overall responsible for a child's loans, fines etc. Also the everything hinges on the item location rather than necessarily the branch or the patron. In that, overdue notices are issued based on item location rather than patron/branch. So a patron may get several overdue notices as items checked out are from different item locations which on Sierra can be very granular. Biggest gripe withe Sierra is that SMS is not readily part of the system for the sending of overdue and holds notices and there is no history of notices sent to particular patron. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

The Sierra System is clunky and difficult to navigate when compared to the Sirsi Dynix system the library was using in the past. The choice of using this system was not mine, but since we have had to join a new consortium it was necessary for [...] to accept this since the hosting library very kindly agreed to supervise this system at no extra charge to our library. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Sierra is a decent system, but it has some bugs. Innovative is slow at fixing most problems. Their customer service has gotten a little better in the las few years. Back in 2007 they were terrible at customer service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Innovative Interfaces customer support is not responsive to even the simplest requests. Implementation services for Encore EDS Discovery are painful. Encore EDS does operate as represented by Innovative Interfaces, and is not responsive to service requests. The fact that Innovative Interfaces does not work with all major third party vendors is a problem. This response was gathered with input from several staff members. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Innovative seems to be stabilizing and moving in a more positive direction as a company. Development is aimed more at public libraries than academic. New 3 tiered packages will provide less flexibility in selecting what products/services a library wants. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are members of the [...] . They provide all of our training and support. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Over the last couple of years III's usually above-par customer service has suffered. With Kim Massana leaving and James Tallman coming on as CEO, we've been hopeful to see larger improvements to offset the issues. While customer service hasn't really been any worse, it hasn't gotten better, either. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Innovative company's “nickel and dime” policy weighed us down. We keep paying for every tiny service/product and we do pay a lot of money. It's just way too much. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We as a library cooperative implemented Sierra in February of 2015. We are still working out bugs and kinks almost two years later. There was almost no training documentation with Sierra. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Please provide was another answer option for migration. We are always in the process of considering a migration. I hope this makes sense; it is a very fluid decision rather than a simple, yes or no. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Clunky and hard to navigate for patrons and staff. Not at all user friendly. Often crashes and freezes, so not reliable. Very difficult and complicated to run simple lists and other necessary functions. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

Product support remains an aggravating weakness. We only get a timely response by making a fuss. There is no recognition that a consortium is a sophisticated customer unlikely to trouble the support desk with basic issues. Too often inexperienced staff are assigned to calls that, because we are a consortia, are inherently about complicated issues. Recovery from the damage done by inexperienced tinkering is often a larger headache than the original problem. The support culture is antagonistic to procedural checklists, so that routine actions like moving us to a new release invariably lead to a day or two of coping with failed functionality because the installers forgot to turn back on a number of processes they turned off in order to enable the upgrade. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

common sense functions such as spell check seems to be a no brainer for ILS's, yet ours doesn't have one. There are other small tweaks that would make an ok ILS be a great ILS. However, that being said, our ILS does a fairly decent job. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Every year at IUG, there is hope for the future of Innovative. However, in practice, the service is still below par and the products are nowhere near what's needed. While we've been happier with Sierra, the pace at which the company works is extremely slow compared to other software vendors. The company lacks focus and the growing pains have been evident for the past 5 years. Improvements have been almost at snail pace and some are almost laughable (such as the new ticketing system). And, yet, they continue to charge outrageous amounts for products and services. We dropped Encore after yelling for so many years about the product's issues. If there were another option out there, we could consider it. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

This ILS does not handle adding or removing subscription ebooks as well as it could. And batch processes are more difficult in tech services (e.g. scanning a truck of books and changing status of all). Overall customer support is very responsive and helpful. The other complaint I have is their antiquated Administrative Portal, which looks and feels a lot of like DOS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

While we are most satisfied with our current ILS, we are excited about the possibilities that FOLIO presents.d (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Sierra was a considerable improvement over Millennium (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

The company's costs for adding enhancements to the system that we have are very high. In fact, quoted us one price which we thought we could do, then 3 months later, quoted a much higher price, which priced us out of being able to order the enhancement. Also, the company should provide better statistics gathering/collection management tools in the basic ILS. It's starting to feel clunky. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

I don't pick the ILS for our library. We are a college under a bigger school that makes the decision. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

I think III is the best that's available but it too (as with all library vendors) struggles to move forward with true product changes that would benefit libraries and patrons. Sierra is a load on top of Millennium, the phone product from III uses software from... believe it was 2001 (old and unstable). Too much technology baggage, some vendor needs to start from scratch and build a new, more agile solution set. I'd like to see Microsoft get into the library arena - the library industry needs a vendor of that size that has the technical resources needed to develop and adequately maintain systems of this complexity. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

III has really gone downhill. Not only it it harder to get customer service, but even requests for sales quotes go into a black hole. It's lost that hometown family feel. EBSCO support remains top-notch. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Want systems with more interoperability within and among systems, better electronic resource integration and management, BIBFRAME support, better ability to pull data for exchange with RAPID, WEST, HathiTrust, discovery services, more synchronicity. Better financial integration for billing, fines, fees, etc. More intuitive, functional public display to make easier for patrons. Less expensive, more customization. Better functionality and control of settings for individual libraries in consortia. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Innovative appear to be undergoing a significant cultural shift at the moment and more regular innovation and better customer service is very much part of that. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Problems with the ILS are mainly about reporting and statistics, rather than general functionality. We have noticed a much worse overall system reliability and performance since our move to the cloud. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Running reports is cumbersome and takes many steps to create simple lists. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We do worry about rising costs pricing us out of the system under our current budget constraints. We suspect in the next few years, there will be more incentives to go hosted with the vendor (we currently are a software only site and our IT dept supports the hardware and OS of the library servers) as SaaS becomes a preferable solution. Additionally, we understand our vendor is currently considering new pricing models for customers and we are eager to see what opportunities/challenges this may bring. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Support: Some support people are wonderful and very efficient. Others are bad. We have several tickets languishing that we have no idea what the status is. Encore support is particularly bad. III currently seems to have a dearth of people who understand both libraries and computers. On the bright side, III staff have started to occasionally post updates to the listserv which are helpful and have been very informative. Development: Unfortunately, I'm not seeing a lot of hope in future releases. Recent releases seem pretty buggy and to add insult to injury there's a major hold bug found more than a year ago that is still a problem. Allegedly it's suppose to be fixed in an upcoming releases but they keep saying that and it hasn't been so far. Having limited SQL access is great (more would be better) and the development of APIs is also good. However, on the listserv it feels like two classes of libraries are starting to emerge: those that have the knowledge and time to provide supplemental development and those that do not. I worry that III sees the APIs as a way to avoid core product development. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

III is currently developing new applications to deal with Electronic resources which will transform the workflows for e-resources. We are part of the beta group and are confident that these new developments will improve management of e-resources significantly. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The ILS itself (Sierra) is not bad but the company support has decreased in quality and the customer satisfaction from spanish libraries (including us) I would say that has decreased as well. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] Consortium (...) is a non-profit organization with the main focus on management and development of the shared catalogue [...] and the integrated library system Sierra. Currently consortium has 17 members which bring to the catalogue approximately 90 libraries. The answers above were given as a general opinion, not from any specific library. We haven't answered about the management of electronic resources as we haven't implemented any specific module which Innovative Interfaces actually provides to manage these resources. The relatively low assessment from our side is based on the problems in the system and communication we have been experiencing lately. If we had answered to this survey some time ago, the results would have been different (and probably better). (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are not satisfied with the ERM functionality (using CORAL instead), but a new version has been developed which we haven't evaluated yet. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

III Sierra is not very comfortabel in consortium use (like us library is part of consortium) (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

System goes down monthly at least. Company is owned by property flippers just looking for a place to sell it for more than they bought it for. The company itself makes no obvious investment in technology improvements. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)

The company says they're committed to their customers, but as far as everyday support, it certainly doesn't seem like they are. For support tickets that can't be resolved and go into software engineering, they'll never get fixed. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We hardly hear from the company any more. The Calif. Sales Rep left and has not been replaced. I like the updates to the core product (Sierra) but we don't seem to much influence what enhancements will be worked on, and ancillary products from this company are generally to be avoided. (Slow development, never completed functionality, high prices.) Support is extremely hit-or-miss and they seem to have no idea how to improve it, though I do think they'd like to. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Since so many records are now loaded for electronic resources that don't have "items", you may wish to update this question to be number of titles which is 652,948 for us and why its so important to us to have a system that can effectively handle this volume. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Innovative need to give more attention to the customers in the region by supporting Arabic language. (Library type: National; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our dissatisfaction with Sierra stems from he fact that there has been little in the way of improvement in making workflows and system administration more intuitive and less clunky. We're essentially dealing with the same underlying Innopac code as we have for years. We should be seeing more streamlining and more functionality implemented. The Sierra enhancement process is not working well. Many winning enhancement requests submitted over the years have not been implemented - we're long overdue for many of them. The product is increasingly clunky and dated. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Innovative has made great improvement in releasing product enhancement regularly with quality control. While each release has a smaller number of enhancements, it comes on schedule, it works and does not cause any outage. We are more inclined to upgrade to the latest release. Innovative also makes great effort in acknowledging any issues resulting from upgrades. They respond quickly and release subsequent fixes in a timely manner. They actively inform customers using IUG. Innovative has released a number of Sierra APIs to the delight of customers. We encourage Innovative to develop tighter integration with vendors like Baker & Taylor, Midwest Tape, Ingram, Hoopla, Zinio, Freegal, etc. Innovative is no longer actively developing Encore Synergy. Customers are encouraged to migrate to EDS. This is more costly and is out of reach for library like us who is facing funding reduction. Encore Synergy was a product they introduced to replace ResearchPro and it was supposed to be a product of the future. Its decision to stop its development leads to a loss of confidence in the sustainability of their product, and more important, in their selection of products to develop. To compensate customers who have invested in the development of this product, there should be an incentive or reward to ease the financial burden to migrate to a new product. Innovative is retiring CIRCA. The upgrade path is to purchase Mobile Worklist which again is not economically feasible to us. Innovative should consider leveraging the features of one ILS to build and develop the other ILS. For example a popular feature such as checkout receipt showcasing customer’s savings for checkout versus purchase of the same items is available to Polaris but not Sierra. This feature should be considered and made available to Sierra customers through general enhancement instead of costly custom programming. Innovative is introducing new pricing structure. We would like to have more ready access to these new pricing structures. This is especially important as we work on budgeting. Innovative has kept Encore customization to minimal even though it is something we have been asking for year in year out. Innovative’s help desk support has improved in this past year, but it is still very inconsistent. The quality of the staff varies from center to center. It is especially noticeable for the help desk center in India. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

significant pieces of the ILS were not included in contract. significant configuration and system work falls to us even though we are hosted. vendor has good future vision, however, we are not fully implemented and there are pieces that may never be fully implemented due to infrastructure. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Sierra system is generally reliable, but ability for customization is limited and many aspects of the administrative software are very arcane and/or archaic both in terms of functionality and user interface. Similar comments for the Encore web catalog interface. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The market does not have enough competition (III, ProQuest, TLC) that you are monopolized by these companies. Financial resources are so tight, that libraries can not effectively use open source or develop systems to their needs as once was done in the 1970s. III is not managed by real librarians and so they have no clue what is happening in the field by librarians having to tolerate their system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have just migrated Millennium to Sierra December 2016. It was easy for our staff to get used to the new system since Sierra is from the same ILS vendor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

What the salespeople say a system can do and what it actually does are two different things. Even though we were careful to ask very specific, detailed questions, we were promised functionality that didn't exist. The implementation was rough - lots of staff turnover - and the support has continued to be bad. Recent efforts by the company have improved support a bit, but there is still a long ways to go. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our Consortium makes the decisions based on the vote of 130 libraries. We go with what they select. This system could be great but they are glacial at making it so. We were the Beta group so I expected this but after this many years I thought it would be fixed. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

The cost of additional products or enhancements continue to be an issue. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

No Comment. There just aren't words that can be repeated to explain the last 2 months with our ILS and how it has soured our feelings towards them. The numbers we are submitting accurately reflect our feelings at this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 1)

Innovative has been taking steps to improve customer support - but, it still is more uneven than I'd like. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Having problems for months getting program to start up at opening with ILS response being the web product will fix it. However, implementation of web product keeps getting pushed back nearly a year with no specific date of implementation yet and no fixes for start-up problem. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

III keeps promsing better products and support, but no real changes have occurred in years. Even Sierra isn't much different from Millennium that has been around since the millennium. The much-promised SQL and API interfaces have been rolled it so slowly it will be a decade before it reaches the level by which we were seduced to move to Sierra. And customer support is reaaly worse than last year, and last year was the worst ever. (Library type: Law; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

Generally happy with Innovative Interfaces but cost is becoming an issue when considering extra features such as Vital, MyLibrary, etc. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We need a more involved vendor rep (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

The Sierra user interface is very old, even despite a recent upgrade. Would like to see III go to a fully web/browser based solution. Sierra is very slow to load. Editing of patron records sometimes unexpectedly allows the user to edit the field name - this is really confusing for our work study students. Overall user interface is very outdated and doesn't seem to have changed since the late 1990s! (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The system is overall reliable. however, the inadequate holds functionality causes consortial and statewide issues as far too many transfers of materials result. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

We are still live with Aleph, anticipating migration to Sierra in July 2017 (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)

We had several bad experiences with III's customer support and representatives in 2015-2016 which were frustrating enough to make us consider migrating to a different ILS (we've just started researching options). Cost is another factor, especially since we got hit with additional fees for work-arounds to a problem III couldn't solve. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Our consortium dictates our ILS. Member libraries do have input in the selection of an ILS for the entire consortium, but our input is limited. Overall, the consortium membership is an excellent situation for this small library. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

The search function of Sierra is extremely weak on the Staff side of things. On the patron (Encore) side of things, it seems to be much better. Often times if you type in a keyword, and the word is in the title, Sierra will still bring up a large number of seemingly unrelated titles. I guess I would say that the system is not very intuitive from a staff perspective. As a very small library, we do not use much of the other functionality of the system, such as acquisitions or for weeding the collection. It can be difficult to generate reports with the necessary information because setting the parameters is confusing, and many times counter-intuitive. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

We are not currently considering migrating to a new ILS because there are no systems that have the functionality that we currently enjoy. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

SIERRA implemeted in 26 of the academic libraries of [...] consortium. This mini consortium of 26 libraries and the project are called [...] SIERRA is supported by a local porvider who is cooperates with the mother-company. None of the libraries communicates directly with the company in U.S. There is a team of 4 colleagues (librarian and ITs, staff members of libraries that are members of [...] ) who have been trained for providing support to libraries. They communicate with the local provider as well (beyond every library's particular communication for solving special matters which came up in their migration). (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Seems like vendor is more interested in in selling new functions than in fixing know problems that have been repeatedly pointed out to them. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

Since I am answering on behalf of the consortia, our questions are directly to the vendor. However, all member LIBRARY questions go to the consortia office, and are passed on if we can't fix it. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

The above responses were for Innovative Interfaces. We have only been using the EBSCO Discovery Services (EDS) for a short time, so we did not include them in the evaluation concerning customer services, etc. So far, EDS seems to be meeting the needs of both patrons and staff better than our previous interface, OCLC Worldcat Discovery. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra should not stop paging for items which are only available at one library after 2 days, whether the library is open or not. We have had problems with Sierra freezing, and it is often slow. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

We migrated to the Sierra system from Horizon in 2016 by joining the [...]. This was a big change for us in that we went from hosting our ILS to letting the consortium handle the ILS. Our impressions of the vendor, therefore, necessarily are filtered by the consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have a large technical team of system librarians and programmers. We would like to be able to change more system parameters by ourselves. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Most in need of improvement is the embedded proxy server, but considering that not all Library Services Platforms even offer a proxy server, we are willing to work with them to improve the product while we consider a third party solution (EZ-Proxy). (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

This product does too much that we don't need, not enough that we do need, the ticket system is too complex and takes too long, their billing and sales departments are needlessly aggressive, and it is too expensive for what we need. That said, we use it extensively for our interlibrary loan and don't want to risk that. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

It would be great if it came with an online ordering functionality and easy integration with Oracle finance system and Access to Memory (ATOM) software (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra is one complete system but it doesn't meet our expectation especially on audit trail, it doesnt trace who perform what and which terminal. Even the history was only kept for 14 days. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

There seems to be increased attention paid to public libraries which is a good thing for us, less so for our colleagues in our public university system. There has been a lot of focus on improving their customer support model, which is still not 'there' and I continue in a wait and see attitude. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

En este momento estamos en proceso de implementar Sierra y Encore Duet (Encore+EDS). (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We in a consortium and will not easily move in 2017 to new ILS (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

ILS