Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Sierra

Statistics according to type and size categories

The following table presents the 2018 results according to the type and size of the library.

SierraallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS4376.09 696.43725.71475.191106.65596.05135.460185.61
ILSFunctionality4376.38 696.87725.97475.681096.80606.17135.460186.11
PrintFunctionality4347.13 687.57727.13477.301076.91606.92136.150187.11
ElectronicFunctionality4275.06 665.14704.77474.701095.44575.30124.580183.72
SatisfactionCustomerSupport4355.17 695.57724.85484.461075.98604.97133.690184.06
CompanyLoyalty4305.23 675.42724.58484.481066.05575.56133.850184.44



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

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS443 9521.44%
Considering new Interface443 5712.87%
System Installed on time?443 38887.58%

Average Collection size: 811957

TypeCount
Public187
Academic197
School0
Consortium18
Special5

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



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

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

Average Collection size: 839431

TypeCount
Public149
Academic208
School4
Consortium23
Special1

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



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

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

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

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

Average Collection size: 746241

TypeCount
Public64
Academic77
School1
Consortium13
Special1

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



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

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

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

2018 : gen: 6.09 company 5.45 loyalty 5.23 support 5.17

2017 : gen: 6.27 company 5.42 loyalty 5.36 support 5.30

2016 : gen: 6.23 company 5.54 loyalty 5.52 support 5.26

2015 : gen: 6.18 company 5.45 loyalty 5.40 support 5.17

2014 : gen: 5.90 company 5.48 loyalty 5.52 support 5.32

2013 : gen: 6.54 company 6.34 loyalty 6.36 support 6.11

2012 : gen: 6.87 company 7.08 loyalty 7.22 support 7.04

Comments (survey2018)

It is possible that our dissatisfaction is misdirected, as almost all of our communication with the vendor goes through our consortium. We are often told, "III support won't do that" or "III support isn't responding to our request." We take the consortium's word for it. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We are delighted with Marmot and Sierra. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Sierra it is just a new version of Millennium. Innovative needs to create a new product or rebuild it. We have lots of issues with no solution. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

I wish III would reduce its pricing structure in order to retain more customers. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We will migrate to Alma (incl. Primo) as part of the [...] library services platform project, probably in early 2020. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

The main issue we have with our current ILS is that we are not seeing much in the way of improvements to core functional modules in the system or evidence of keeping up with the competition. Even with a new enhancement process, enhancements that customers have been asking for years are mostly not taking place. We feel most of III focus is on new products and new platforms (SierraWeb) and not enough improvements are being made to core modules. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

Would like to see the open source options above mature and gain a solid user base. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Sierra's now seriously outdated. We're reviewing our future requirements, but are taking our time because next-gen systems are currently in development (FOLIO, Innovative's Sierra replacement) (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

Considering switching from Encore Duet to Ebsco Discovery Services. Innovative proxy is not keeping up with the times. Considering switching to Open Athens. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

There is a very aggressive deselection process in place as library space is devoted to more space for students and replacement of print with electronic resources. [...] is using Sierra and Intota along with other products to manage electronic resources. We are unhappy with the lack of integration between the different products which create manual mundane processes for library staff. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

New releases cause more problems and things not working that were functioning before, need more fixes after every new release. More API's are available to fill in where the ILS is lacking. API's come at a cost and library staff doesn't have the knowledge to /implement API's. External companies are used to upgrade existing catalogue records at a cost. WebOPAC has not been upgraded for many years by ILS provider, libraries have to upgrade themselves if they have knowledgeable staff. The new MyLibrary! App is a total new subscription, and is not a free replacement for AirPac used by libraries before. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

KOha has a strong Swedish network! (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Innovative's sales staff is the worst I've encountered, both professionally and professionally. There's a rotating cast of characters who appear responsive at first, and then end up vanishing from the face of the earth, never to be heard from again. This makes it hard to add new products and services, and in those rare moments when contact is made, the negotiation process smacks of the worst used car experience ever conceived. If migrating to a new product wasn't so onerous, we would have pulled the plug a year ago. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Although the system was delivered on time in 2014, the functionality agreed-to in the contract of 2013 HAS STILL NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED. Holds in a multi-type consortium are a particular weakness. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

We recently got a new sales rep and this has made us feel better about the company. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are currently in implementation with Alma with a Go-Live date of June 3, 2019. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 0)

We will be moving from stand alone to hosted in the next FY. In addition to "items" we have 101,685 bibliographic records for e-resources with no item records attached. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

none (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Increasingly we need other service partners (e.g. ExLibris) for optimal access to our electronic collections. Linked Data interface solutions are being investigated. Hope III keep its hat in the ring. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are watching the market closely right now. In the next 3 to 5 years we expect to see great shifts in the "next-gen" platforms that will be released. We will likely then engage in exploratory and RFP processes at that time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

these types of decisions are made by our [...] consortium (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have been pleased with the new Sierra "Encore" online catalog. Although it does not give us full functionality as the consortium chose not to add periodical interface, we are still happy with the product. we find it easy to use and more substantive than the previous "Classic Catalog" version. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Starting December 2017, [...] migrated our locally hosted Millennium to vendor-hosted Millennium. Then Feb-March 2018, we merged our Millennium system with that of [...] into one Millennium system. After working out all the bugs, we migrated to Sierra. [...] and [...] are now accounting unit 1 and accounting unit 2, respectively, at [...] This was a fairly atypical project for Innovative, and there were some issues (like timestamps in different time zones) that iii had to work out for us for the first time. All in all, they did a pretty good job. Not perfect, but the price didn't break the bank either. The project managers are thoughtful and professional and importantly, library people. That helps communication. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Product roadmap is unclear because of senior staff changes at the Vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are and have been struggling with the staff and financial cost of our current ILS - we feel as though we are driving a luxury car when what we really need is a basic plain vanilla car; trying to keep up with the cost and staff requirements with our budget (has been cut at least a third in the last 5 years) and staff (reduced to a third in the last 5 years) is tough. We are not happy with any of the potential choices: OCLC WMS (loss of local records to master record system), ALMA (too complicated), TIND (a relatively new system, so not truely tried yet), Lucidea (probably not complex enough). The cost of maintaining our current system is already an issue, and we are close to reaching the maximum price point the administration will tolerate. (Library type: Law; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have had a very negative experience with Innovative Interfaces. We were down for 2 weeks this summer after an operating system upgrade. We are a turnkey site. The company was very unresponsive during that 2 weeks. The staff interface is still from the 1990's with some administrative tasks using a character client. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

Tech support from Innovative I would rate a 3 out of 10. There is often a lot of back and forth, especially if the issue involves Innovative and other vendors of electronic resources/tools. Sales support I would give a zero! They are consistently unresponsive to inquiries about new products or issues with our existing products. Our primary (only?) reason for staying with Innovative when we added EDS this year was because we decided "the devil we know is better than the devil we don't know." The other ILS's we investigated seemed underdeveloped compared to Sierra and we've been with Innovative since we implemented automation in the early 1990's. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Support for our ILS has gotten better with easy questions. The more challenging questions or projects have long wait times and then even when scheduled may result in downtime outside of the anticipated period. It seems there are more resources for triaging but senior Help Desk or Support staff are gone. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

For question 4, we don't use ERM (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

It's a time of big change in the industry, so there is a lot of uncertainty about where we go from here when it comes to MARC. Innovative seems to be doing a lot of development related to BIBFRAME, so we'll need to see what they come up with in the next 2-3 years. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

My impressions of the ILS and customer service are based on my experience as a cataloger. Users of other modules may have different experiences. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

The discovery environment seems to be changing again, this time towards AI. Therefore, we are keeping on eye out for Yewno and III's Context-Engine. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Innovative aren't very good at asking users what they should be focusing on for future developments. Projects and modules are left unfixed or abandoned to begin new projects that customers have never expressed an interested in. However their customer services have generally improved and they now have a way to log enhancement requests for existing products. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The salesperson we worked with during our move from Millennium to Sierra gave us some misleading information. We would not have made the same decision had we received correct information from him. We negotiated in good faith and he did not. We have communicated this to the company and received sympathy but no satisfaction. We have a new salesperson now, but she is unable to make good on the promises from the old salesperson. All in all, a terrible transition. Months later, we are still waiting on some of the modules to be installed. The terms of the contract as such that we don't have a lot of recourse without losing a lot of money. I wish we had gone with another system. I've never had this kind of deceptive experience with a vendor and I've dealt with many automation vendors over the years. Absolutely the worst experience ever. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Migrating to Alma/Primo in June 2019. Discontinuing EDS and Sierra. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

Innovative has made it clear that they are not going to invest in fixing issues with the current/legacy products that they charged us an arm and a leg for. They are supposedly developing a "Next Gen" platform that will address the sad state of the public interface (WebPAC, Encore), etc. While I understand the business case, it doesn't excuse the lack of attention to many of their products over the past 5-10 years. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We feel that the $25,000 annual cost for Sierra for our small community college library is ridiculous. And we don't want to spend an additional $2,000 per year to add the module that will allow us to easily develop lists of overdue items. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

Highly disappointed with Innovative. would like to change to Alma, but has to be done in Cosortium and unlikely to be soon. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)

Our choice of ILS is constrained by our consortium; we can (and must) change products/companies only if the consortium does. Innovative customer support is still hit or miss: sometimes we get a quick and useful response to a ticket, sometimes an incompetent response, and sometimes no response (for weeks, months, or even years). The sales department continues to be slow to respond to product inquiries and quote requests. We had a particularly bad experience implementing a new add-on purchased this year: the technician assigned appeared to have no idea how to implement the product such that our local IT staff ended up doing most of the work in remote sessions on his machine; sales reps had told us that the product could work with their consortium product when, once implementation began, it became apparent that this had not been done before and they didn't really know whether it could be implemented or how to do it (they eventually managed to, more or less); and Innovative declared the project closed and shut down the project management site without telling us, when we still considered the implementation incomplete (and had been repeatedly telling them so). (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large)

Sierra Tech Support seems to behave in phases. Sometimes it will be great, and then it will drop off for a while. We can't take on a project like a new ILS at the moment, but we're always watching developments from all the major vendors. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Innovative's ERM has not been updated in nearly 10 years. We are using LibGuides for front-facing lists but need a better back-end management system for e-resources. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Unfortunately, customer service at Innovative Interfaces continues to decline noticeably. It is of concern that the parent company, which is a venture capital firm, has made steep cuts to personnel and this appears to be at least a factor in the decline in customer service. Communication about new products and services is close to non-existent and often we must escalate our service requests to get the assistance we need. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Al ser una biblioteca de la [...] , la Gerencia de servicios bibliotecarios es quien tiene respuestas más fidedignas pero creo que es importante que nosotros también participemos. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra is an unstable programme with not very responsive customer support in a different time zone. Our systems crash frequently, updates cause further instability and any fixes are always slow in coming. Our last updates has caused the system instability (programme won't at all open for an hour and has a tendency to either freeze or respond as if it was drugged at least once a day) for the past 6 weeks with no end in sight. The system, apparently, was designed to accommodate warehouse stock. When searching the catalogue, it organises the volume of data on screen in a way that's easy to navigate but does not allow for even an apostrophe in the wrong place... So using Google to confirm titles or search terms is necessary. It is a headache. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 2)

Vendors need to move to more open systems and allow greater integration across platforms. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

The public catalog interface is very poor in some ways. Google and Amazon have managed to implement interfaces that use natural language, are forgiving of typos, and let searchers use the back arrow to move back in their searches. Sierra's catalog does none of these things, which are pretty basic browser/search engine functionalities. New users are constantly stymied by these deficiencies. Even library staff have difficulties with searching. The Sierra staff modules also have hangups, though they're generally functional for most of what we need. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Apologies - had to guess on some of the questions above as it is not within my province to know the information. As a librarian I use the system but don't deal with implementation details. Hope this helps. Cheers (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Although Innovative promises a lot, development is not keeping pace with other vendors. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We are not currently using the Innovative (Sierra) system to it’s full capacity, but for the functions that are being used we are satisfied with the product. Innovative customer support: They have moved to a new “ticketing system” it took a while to get used to the new way of logging a problem. Documentation is not always situated in one place of reference and it can be frustrating for the client. The helpdesk support is excellent … especially since they have a call centre in Dublin, which is within South Africa's time zone. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

The information for the branch is reflected in with the [...] Public Library, the main location. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small)

Customer service is poor. ILS staff turnover is high. More focus on making money than developing the product. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

The software mostly does what we need, but not completely. Upgrades always break existing functionality, then they do patches, which is annoying. Customer support has never been good, and seems to be getting worse. It can take weeks or months to get a ticket resolved. Often support's answers only point us to documentation, which is terrible and doesn't answer our questions. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Some of our options in Sierra are limited because we are part of a consortium. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Sluggish customer service response time. Incomplete and unexplained solutions. Some lost data during migration. Product itself is stable overall. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Innovative is very slow in responding to questions and problems. Their customer service is lacking to the point of being non-existent. They do not support the most basic MARC functions. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)

In the past year iii moved its sales and technical support out of mainland China. We continue to receive support for Hong Kong, Singapore, and USA. We are beginning to catalog Chinese books with bilingual descriptions and LC subjects headings. So far the system is OK for this purpose. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Overall we have like III as our ILS vendor, but in recent years customer service has been spotty with long periods between responses. We understand that there has been some changes to the management in recent years and we hope to see things turnaround again and to see the level of customer support service we had originally when we migrated to Millennium in 2005. At that point we had excellent customer support, with nearly immediate responses. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Maintenance costs are very expensive and the funding for the University are decreasing (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We'd like to look at FOLIO, but it seems to have been developing slower than promised. Particularly, we're not sure it will offer consortial functionality by the time we are seriously looking at migrating our ILS (perhaps 3 years). For this reason we may go to Alma instead. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)

Support from Innovative has been bad this year, no answers to our questions and really bad support from the sales team. It feels like they no longer want our business. We will have to stick with the cheapest product because of severe budget cuts but would not recommend to anyone. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

We migrated to Sierra in August and all 3 of the products we purchased to enhance our system (SSO, Fine payment API, My Library App) have not yet been successfully implemented. I'm extremely disappointed with their customer service, which has been true for several years now, and even at high levels of management issues are not being resolved. In hind site, I wish we would have gone with a competitor rather than implementing Sierra. (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

none (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We would like to see a LSP that address and integrates all of our metadata needs (e.g. print, electronic, IR, images and archival materials) in one place that can also work with the University's learning management system and other software while maintaining the most basic library functions, such as circulation and inventory. One does not seem to exist that can meet all of our needs but we are excited to see the progress with FOLIO and hope it will inspire other vendors to approach library systems more broadly and with better flexibility. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Sierra tiene integración con Bibliotheca y Overdrive para la gestión de ebooks, pero deberia haber trabajado en la integración con algun otro proveedor. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Please note for question #4: We use Encore Duet to manage our electronic resources. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Innovative Interfaces, Inc. has failed us on crucial hardware/software support migrations, where it was difficult to get them to commit to action that would keep our hardware and operating systems up to date, even at an additional price. Their support has been better with their ILS application, but even then, we see a large number of issues get sent to "software engineering" where they can sit for some time without response. Our major state universities are migrating to Alma/Primo, as are our neighbors in South Carolina. Community within the region was also a consideration. We might have considered open source alternatives, but the annual maintenance charges are competitive with salary costs for running our own, or support costs from OSS ILS vendors. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)

the turnover in III ILS reps is crazy, we have had 4 reps in the past 6 years, two of which lasted about 6-8 months. Not happy with Canadian support (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

The ILS vendor has exhibited increasingly poor levels of communication, slow and inadequate responses to technical support tickets, and little initiative to escalate concerns or issues when technicians encounter "roadblocks" in solving recognized problems. Most of the core products work well, although the Statistics Module often produces wonky data. Newer functionality often did not/does not work as advertised, is only compatible with certain proprietary products, and/or is technologically lacking. One example is a product called Mobile Worklists, which should facilitate the inventorying of an entire collection through barcode scanning, but the software can only work with Apple products of a specific generation and higher, is not Bluetooth compatible, and is plagued by technological glitches such as double scanning. (Library type: Law; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

There are just too many pay-to-play exceptions to our ILS being as truly functional as it could be. It is sad that being able to maintain and allow access to information is controlled by those who are so very concerned with profitability. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Current system quite capable of meeting our needs better, but we are too small to afford expensive add-ons. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Sierra is really a larger system than we need. If it were not for the [...] consortium, it would be too expensive for us to afford. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

It is very important to us that our system has well developed API:s so that we can add/integrate other products. We don´t believe there is one system that can do everything a library needs. We have created an app that presents our collection better and help us to give our patrons better service. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We really like EBSCO's Discovery. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are part of the [...] system so the ILS is negotiated through them for 66 member libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The quality of Innovative's support and sales department responsiveness have continued to decline over the last year. Development seems a bit off target, too. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

As Google Search uses the benefits of crowd informed searching and Artificial Intelligence to increase relevancy of results. It has surpassed the ability of a librarian to provide quick answers to routine questions. If Open resources are enabled in a discovery service, the number of open access titles found in discovery results is split about 50/50 with paid content, but paid content volume in results will continue to decrease relative to open access titles. In about 5 years, only the most affluent institutions will be subscribing to for-fee articles and other content through vendor licensing. 10 years from now, journals will either go to a form of open access, or disappear as people ignore titles that are behind a paywall. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We were very dissatisfied with customer service from Innovative. After trying (unsuccessfully) to resolve several issues and receiving an exorbitant quote to upgrade, we migrated to OCLC WMS in July 2018. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

We are a part of a consortium, so we do not interact directly with the ILS company or customer service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

My impression of Innovative's Sierra would probably be more positive if we hadn't started the year (after the database was re-scoped) experiencing extreme slowness and then having to shut it all down and go offline for several hours on our first business day of the year. Too bad you asked today. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 4)

I have looked at other library catalogs and been impressed with the scope of information provided. I feel that our catalog is becoming more mediocre rather than cutting edge. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We're eager to explore FOLIO, but don't have hugely high hopes at the moment that we'd be able to implement it anytime soon. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We used to be stand alone with III, but rejoined the local consortium. It manages our print resources just fine. Our consortium just purchased more pieces to manage the electronic resources better. We no longer deal with III directly on support issues and our consortium opens all tickets in a very timely manner. III seems to be making positive strides in improving customer service. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

consortial decision making about Integrated Library Systems is fraught with complexity (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

We are a small library and sometimes it is a pain when sierra times out when we are not using it. We have new librarians within the past 8 months so we are just learning. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

In [...] we have routine serious connectivity issues when using Sierra. This causes freezing, restarts, and lost data. Sierra is built on 1990's Server-Client architecture and has no business being sold and implemented on such scale as it is. The only reason Sierra and Innovative is still viable is that their clients are trapped by the cost of migrating to a better product. It should be Server-Browser based. That would solve a multitude of issues and allow for individual user logins, valuable analytics, breadcrumb trails and logging, robust secure connections. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)

Much of our interaction with III goes through our consortium, so it is hard for us to evaluate direct support. Encore implementation delays, for example, may ultimately be at the consortium side of things, though we are generally told otherwise. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are disappointed by Worldcat Discovery, especially when sales promised us we'd be able to search all of ATLA content with a remote connection. We are now looking at EBSCO EDS as an alternative, but we have decided that we really need 1) a traditional webpac with emphasis on fielded searching and 2) a combined search of periodical articles. We don't see much advantage to a discovery layer for graduate students, except where it combines periodical indexing sources. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

I am not very happy with the system running so slow at times and I am not sure why some things get changed unexpectedly. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

I think the create lists function of Sierra is not effective in many instances. We have been experiencing slow downs or freezing when doing searches for patrons. It is VERY frustrating to have a patron asking a simple search question and we are not able to answer because Sierra freezes up. It has not been fixed for well over a year now. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 0)

The system meets our needs. There have been system quirks but they are eventually corrected. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have just upgraded to Sierra. Implementation plan was impressive and implementation process was handled very smoothly. Other libraries in Ireland have moved to Koha (open source) and their experience would reinforce my opinion that while open source may have potential in the future it is currently not fit for purpose for a large, multi sited library. [...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have just completed an [...] tender for a replacement ILS, Discovery service and Reading List application. The final announcement has yet to be made by ExLibris, but we have signed contracts and are awaiting the press release. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

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

Parent company is American so will not implement changes for branches in Ireland (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

disappointing, laborious, frustrating, does not inspire confidence, higher that expected frequency of outages, hold notifications is a systematic issue, slow, hard to get in at start of business, search function fair (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 3)

Our ILS decisions are made by main campus, [...]. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The Library implemented at least three upgrades this past year -- we had not kept up. The difference with these upgrades was that there was much better alignment and communication between the vendor and the Library; the vendor provided solid recommendations on the sequencing of the upgrades and was on stand-by as we went through the process. (The past few upgrades were not so aligned ...) We were very satisfied with the improved functionality, troubleshooting, and the overall support we received. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Unfortunately we are not responsible for purchasing our ILS since we are a college among a larger university. Otherwise we would go with a better ILS. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

We are fine with the product and the company. The mandated support, by our consortium, is awful. Awful. The functionality is unknown in the full context, due to the mediocrity of the consortium support. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We just added VITAL to our tools in order to catalog our Heritage Center. That is going very well for us. Yes, Innovative is expensive, but so are qualified IT personnel. There is no way we could handle Open Source ILS and all the grief that we hear bout some libraries are having.....and still having. Thank you.. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Our ILS is owned and managed by [...] Library System, a regional public library system covering two counties with 29 member libraries. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are part of a III resource sharing network ([...] ) and would not migrate unless the entire group did. If a suitable open source ILS were available and it had appropriate support, I would certainly look at it. Please note the [...] is a branch of the [...] Public Library, and not (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We're part of a consortium and the way the ILS was set up means we're unable to do certain things. For example, we can't bulk delete "e" records, we need to pull the full record set for the database and replace it. Acquisitions is a complicated process in Sierra and tends not to be used. The Sierra ILS is expensive, so the smaller libraries within the consortium (with smaller collections) may want to move to a system that's more economical, even if it has less functions. However, many of the libraries within the consortium use most, if not all of the Sierra functions, and would need to find another product with more bells and whistles for us to consider a move. Our EDS Daily Update involves 131,373 records including print and electronic resources, which is significantly larger than our print collection alone, as referenced above. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

As we participate in a consortium, we are bound to the ILS that the consortium chooses (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

The development of the open API has been a tremendous help for patron loads and patron authentication with 3rd party systems. I assigned an 8 to satisfaction with functionality because of certain bugs that have yet to be resolved which freezes the application. Having used other ILS products in my career, I am delighted to be able to work with III Sierra. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Sierra was easy to learn after using the older iii system for over twenty years. If we have problems, we submit them to our Library System's Technology Department who is authorized to get answers. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

My consortium handles all details. Librarians do get to vote on some changes. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Things have settled down in Sierra and customer service has improved but some developments promised have not happened yet (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

There are less choices in terms of the next generation of Integrated Library System (ILS). (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

The company could be better to handle the internationalization issues. We have some problems that depends on the lack of internationalization. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Sierra has terrible reporting capabilities for the individual libraries. We have to contact our library consortium office for many of the statistics we routinely keep. Plus, the manner in which statistics are displayed is appalling. Under our stand-alone system, it would take me approximately 30 seconds to compile the monthly statistics I needed. With Sierra's statistics program, Decision Center, it takes me at least half an hour to compile the circulation statistics I need every month. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra is a very expensive system and we expect that customer service would be extraordinary. Unfortunately, it is very ordinary. Training sessions are exorbitant. We learn a lot from the user group community. Sierra is a good product and they have added many enhancements which are moving into forward into a next generation system. We are looking forward though to become part of the open source community with FOLIO. Unfortunately, it's too early for us to make a decision right now. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are a part of a federated system who is the main contact for customer support and overall maintenance of the automated system. They purchased the product for the system, so the survey is not completely accurate. Some of the questions do not apply to my library. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Innovative Inter. Inc is still nickel & diming their products rather than some full complete ILS. A mobile interface that is extra?? Barely off the ground web Sierra? Cloud options that are not savings but sky high cloud costs. Support -portal phones are clearly designed to mitigate human first contact and difficult when human is needed. On the plus side the EU Dublin group is good. Some individuals on support are quite good. On the fear side it looks like iii is gearing up to resell the whole ILS rather than evolving improving what is. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

The core product is pretty good and the updates have continued to be trouble free, a pattern established in the last 3 years. The service aspect varies wildly, between excellent and non-existent depending on the topic of the ticket. We haven't had a sales rep in 3 years, and so we lack a point person for covering our interests, though we've been able to get quotes on new products pretty quickly. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

The vendor promised functionality that is just now becoming available after more than 3 years. This has caused expenses in materials delivery. The system overall is reliable but the response on needed improvements has been slow. Our consortium staff work hard to customize the service. It is very valuable to have an ILS for this small library. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Generally, Innovative Interfaces is very good. Their customer support is good. They sometimes put out new releases that aren't tested as well as they might be. They are good about fixing the bugs. The WAM proxy is not as good as it used to be. It seems to have some nuances that cause problems (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

As an academic library, we've not had bad customer service from III, but we talk to many publics who have. III hasn't been in touch at all with us, and apparently has been avoiding contact with other academics, which is odd in a contract renewal year. As a result, we're shopping around for a cheaper deal - we don't need bells and whistles, but we do need something that's economical and doesn't require anything close to a systems librarian. As part of the last negotiations, III did provide us with shared management services hours - a godsend for our beleaguered staffing situation. We don't do discovery, mostly on the philosophy that smart students at a liberal arts college don't need dumbing down services to find information. If we get WMS, we might implement their discovery - which is at least vendor neutral. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

While we are not considering moving to a new ILS any time in the near future, we did do an ILS "landscape review" in 2018. This involved speaking to peer libraries (similar in structure and size) on various ILS systems to gauge impressions about the open source and proprietary systems on the market. One of our key takeaways from this process is that Evergreen might be the ONLY ILS out there that would be worth considering for an organization of our size and complexity. That said, we understand that III is in the process of rolling out its new "context engine" product, which they say will eventually lead to an entire overhaul of the underlying architecture of the system. Depending on how this turns out, it could completely change our impressions over the next few years. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Library's e-resoruces are managed through a different system by ProQuest, not the ILS. ILLs are also managed through a different system, VDX. Some responses have been left blank because they are not applicable to our library. We deal with an intermediary, rather than directly with customer support, so cannot answer those questions. (Library type: Special; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Customer support follow through/speed is not great unless an emergency. Need better reporting tools. No sense of participating in a proactive, problem-solving community. Efforts to communicate with library leadership are minimal to non-existent. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Integration with other library systems could be improved & development of new functions for ILS seems slow (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Current number of items listed includes all where the previous number looks like it only included books in stacks. Also, you should have an additional choice of N/A and/or Don't Know. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Innovative Interfaces hasn't evolved with technology trends much in many years. The ILS really needs to continue to adapt to current technologies and needs. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

ILS