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 2019 results according to the type and size of the library.

2019 Sierra Responses by Sector
SierraallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS3935.92 676.34685.21475.30886.41386.08145.501205.00
ILSFunctionality3956.18 676.39685.78475.55886.52396.15146.001215.76
PrintFunctionality3937.06 677.42676.93477.43876.68396.79147.001216.95
ElectronicFunctionality3914.96 665.11674.33474.40865.69395.05143.711213.62
SatisfactionCustomerSupport3915.26 655.85684.74474.81865.71394.85144.001214.38
CompanyLoyalty3905.22 675.61684.38464.46865.80395.18144.861214.86



2019 Survey Results
Product: Sierra Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction393 3 6 18 20 31 59 78 102 59 17 75.926
ILS Functionality395 2 4 13 28 27 41 75 101 80 24 76.187
Print Functionality393 6 3 2 8 13 19 42 119 116 65 77.067
Electronic Functionality391 13 28 35 27 42 65 63 64 43 11 54.965
Company Satisfaction392 14 12 29 29 45 54 56 88 51 14 75.346
Support Satisfaction391 14 13 28 37 38 64 54 81 46 16 75.266
Support Improvement380 13 9 13 28 52 113 35 53 46 18 55.275
Company Loyalty390 35 14 20 22 40 59 50 70 49 31 75.226
Open Source Interest385 85 35 53 36 43 42 25 24 20 22 03.393

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS402 13333.08%
Considering new Interface402 6115.17%
System Installed on time?402 35187.31%

Average Collection size: 823706

TypeCount
Public145
Academic189
School1
Consortium22
Special4

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,00011
[2] 10,001-100,000104
[3] 100,001-250,00083
[4] 250,001-1,000,000109
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00074
[6] over 10,000,0015



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 38987.81%

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

2019 : gen: 5.92 company 5.34 loyalty 5.22 support 5.26

2018 : gen: 6.09 company 5.45 loyalty 5.23 support 5.17

2017 : gen: 6.27 company 5.42 loyalty 5.36 support 5.30

2016 : gen: 6.23 company 5.54 loyalty 5.52 support 5.26

2015 : gen: 6.18 company 5.45 loyalty 5.40 support 5.17

2014 : gen: 5.90 company 5.48 loyalty 5.52 support 5.32

2013 : gen: 6.54 company 6.34 loyalty 6.36 support 6.11

2012 : gen: 6.87 company 7.08 loyalty 7.22 support 7.04

Comments (survey2019)

Our ILS is managed by [...] , so we have to contact them when something happens. It seems like there have been more than a few hiccups lately. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Things have improved with Sierra in terms of customer support but we are still using a java client instead of cloud based system which is our preference. Sierr 'does the job' and makes good use of APIs for third party integration but it could do a lot better. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

this is a culture challenge, not a technology challenge (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

We are very excited about Innovative Interface's new discovery product, Inspire. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

OCLC pricing is awful. For a company listed as a "nonprofit" cooperative, they do a fantastic job of demonstrating that they have a near monopoly on the information and services that libraries seek to access through them. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

In the spring of 2019 we began the process of looking for a new library services platform (specifically a SaaS solution), beginning with the issuing of an RFI. Our thinking around SaaS has largely been based on our experiences with these services through applications like Summon and ContentDM (which we migrated to OCLC's cloud solution about a year ago). Unfortunately budget considerations have delayed the issuing of an RFP but we hope to be able to move this project along in 2020. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Innovative technical support has gotten somewhat better, more responsive to tickets, in the past year. Their sales support, however, seems non-existent. I have no idea who our sales rep even is and have not heard from anyone in approximately 2 years since we signed and implemented our most recent ILS/Discovery bundle agreement. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

It would require a reliable third-party service company, and educating the administration to trust such a company for us to go open source. The latter seems unlikely at this point. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

I have no idea of the library we work through would go with an Open Source ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our library is actively evaluating a new discovery interface and index, for implementation by summer 2020. Although we are not actively evaluating a new ILS, library staff is interested in considering our options with a look toward migrating within 3-5 years. We are long time Innovative customers, but find the value of their products relative to the amount we are spending on them steadily decreasing over the years. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

Because of our participation in the [...] consortium, we are required to use the ILS chosen by [...] (Library type: Medical; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

We were exceptionally happy Sierra/Encore users until 2 things happened. Our 5 year contract needed renegotiation and Encore stopped supporting many 'connectors'. Efforts to work with Innovative to renegotiate our contract were difficult and drawn out. It was hard to tell what was happening and that's so unlike our previous experiences with them. It was very disheartening especially since we are/were such huge fans. There was confusion about the new product and if we should migrate to it. In all I think the timing was wrong but they did very little to try and keep our business. Parallel to this was the deterioration of Encore's ability to harvest the connectors to give our users the look and feel of Discovery. Here too, just a total lack of communication. Ticket after ticket submitted with no resolution until they came to present to us and told us that Encore connectors wouldn't be supported. WMS surprised us, we didn't expect to like the product as much as we did. They worked with us on costs and we are in the prep stage for a June 2020 migration and go live. We are excited to see how the knowledge base works with electronic content. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Concerns with III: 1. Price of product - too much for a catalog system only, 2. Bugs in product - too many important functions break with each upgrade. I filled out the survey but it is with input from Jane Costanza, Head of Resource Management and Discovery (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

We performed a market survey during FY 2018-2019 due to the need to decrease our annual maintenance costs of our III ILS. During this review, we determined that we would need a consultant to actually migrate, and so entered a 5-year arrangement with our current vendor that would hold costs to some extent, and plan to do another review in year 3, hire a consultant and issue an RFP subsequently, and potentially migrate to another system at the end of our 5-year agreement. Lucidea was the system that we most favored, but they have a LOT of work to provide features for a traditional academic library that we require -- almost all of their current clients are corporate, law firms, museums, etc. (Library type: Law; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have a really hard time working with Innovative. Some of the customer support people are really good, but ones doing upgrades are really overbooked. We have also had a really frustrating time working with sales and the front office with billing and invoices. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Sierra is problematic. Customer support is near non-existent. At least, 5 years to have a way to do inventory...and it still doesn't work well. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

We just switched to Sierra because III made the cost very attractive, and we knew it would be an easy implementation. We'll stick with Sierra for the foreseeable future (it will probably be 5 years before we'll consider an ILS migration again). At that time, we'll probably seek quotes from Alma, ByWater Solutions (Koha), III, and others, depending on the market. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

III's support has become less personal so interactive resolution of issues has become more difficult. We do definitely benefit from III's offices abroad in that we can request a software upgrade and it is done by the Dublin, Ireland office before we are open for business here in California. We are very pleased with III's INN-Reach product but growth of a consortium is hampered by III's high pricing. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Over reliance on legacy software. Poor or unresponsive technical support, albeit improving. Core functionality missing; extra "products" that should otherwise be in the base software, such as scheduling imports and exports, or bibliographic link maintenance. No native SAML support. Really needs to catch up on the SSO game. Still very happy with some features, though. Create Lists, SQL Access, and REST API functionality are all great, and I wouldn't want to give them up. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

As Innovative Interfaces' support quality continues to decline and development of features do not keep up with our needs, we have chosen to move to another ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

Our consortium [...] ) is considering implementing a discovery layer, but it is not up to me to decide. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

[...] does an excellent job playing "middleman" with our ILS. Thrilled to be part of the group. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

My main concern with III is that it seems unable to keep up with - and sometimes even understand - the needs of the academic market. While there is work going on with Inspire and focus is starting to extend to e-resource management, I feel that the company has a big learning curve and I don't know that that it has the agreements in place with e-resource publishers/aggregators to achieve the functionality they envision. The perception is that other companies targeting primarily the academic segment that started on this path earlier are improving their products faster and more comprehensively across functional areas, and III is falling further behind. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

While we're satisfied for the most part with our III system (tech support is very responsive, much more so than in past years), it's awfully expensive and the company seems to have turned most of their attention to academic library needs. Many of their products are legacy and they don't update them (mobile catalog, e-commerce, etc.). We're happy with the MyLibrary app, but that, too needs some updates (allowing fines payment, for example). We could migrate to Bilbionix/Apollo (much, much cheaper) and then be able to afford something like Bibliocommons on top of it for the price we pay for Sierra/Encore. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We are such a small library with limited funds, staffing, and use of our ILS, yet we pay a large amount of money to operate Sierra ILS via our consortium. We actually considered a simple "out of the box' solution with no bells and whistles but are scared of losing our consortium tech support if we stray from Sierra. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 6)

Still struggling to get III to understand multi-type consortia. Would switch to Primo in a heartbeat but they still pretty much don't seem to want to do anything with schools or public libraries in a multi-type environment. Kinda stuck between a hard place and a hard place. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

We don't administer the contract (made at the consortium level) but discover interface never implemented, which we were expecting as a member at least. While support generally goes through consortium, I was given option to contact them directly but III has not been at all responsive to my requests (regarding important receipt printer functionality at the circulation desks) (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Because this library belongs to a consortium ([...]), we all have the same ILS. As a whole, we are not particularly satisfied with the product, and may consider another vendor. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We transitioned to III Sierra in 2018 from OCLC WMS. Our data was bad coming out of OCLC so we are having cleanup issues in Sierra. Our support from our current vendors is lacking. Customer support with Innovative is at an all time low. It is getting better but if I knew that it was this bad I would have advocated strongly not to migrate back. Our discovery layer, EDS, is okay but the support is also not very good. Continued delays on support issues for both vendors. At this point I am not sure who my sales rep is for Innovative if that tells you how bad things are. I used to be on first name basis with my sales reps. We are considering moving to Folio after our 5 year contract with Innovative is up. We keep getting information from EBSCO about Folio but I thought it was open source? I guess this is a quasi open source when you have vendor support through EBSCO. My current lack of support with EDS would lead me to advocate moving to Folio until it has been tested for a few years at least after it is live. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

1,391,502 (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We have 127,214 physical items, excludes all the e-stuff (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We interested in Innovative's initiative with BIBFRAME / linked data in Inspire but more interested in the backend / staff client then in the discovery layer at this point. I would be curious if other vendors such as Ex Libria have a linked data initiative underway. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Locally there are more IHLs migrating to Alma. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Hi Marshall, [...] is currently on Sierra but will be moving to WMS in June 2020. The question regarding the most recent ILS implementation is in reference to our migration to Sierra as the WMS implementation is only halfway through. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

N.A. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

When you ask "number of items in the library's collection" I am not sure if you mean physical, or all (digital + physical) We have 86,207 physical copies in the collection. We have over 190,000 physical and digital copies in the collection. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I think Innovative has REALLY tried hard to restructure their customer service team. They assigned us a new representative that is way more attentive--we didn't even know we had one prior to him. I have encouraged them to move to a new model of training--rather than forcing libraries to hire a team to put on a one-off webex or instruction session, they should provide on-demand webinars, recorded tutorials, more understandable, accessible written instructions. I have suggested to my rep that training videos like EBSCO or Springshare provide are the way of the future. This is really one of our main complaints with them--having to request assistance rather than being empowered to learn it and fix it ourselves. We dropped Encore this year because we had so little control over the platform. The Administrative System is archaic and ridiculous, and they are so reluctant to help you learn how to use it--it is pretty useless. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

In Aug. 2018, our library migrated from Millineum to Sierra with the promise of SSO. However, after a year and paying Innovative, they were unable to make SSO live. The lack of transparency and communication from Innovative has been frustrating. When we open tickets, Innovative responds a week later. We would like to see Innovative, more responsive to customer needs. Sierra is geared towards a print collection. For the future, we hope Innovative changes their interface, so it's focused more on electronic resource management. (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Many of the internal process we use now requires outside automation in the form of scripts. This includes more robust seperate third party SQL programs for stats and acquisitions. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Cleveland Institute of Music shares its ILS (and associated costs) with Case Western Reserve University, and 6-8 University Circle libraries, meaning we don't negotiate directly with Innovative. This also means we share access to the collection, and extricating ourselves by moving to a new ILS or other system would be difficult. (Library type: Music; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Sierra has been increasing prices and not delivering the services we would like to see. We underwent a search for new ILS systems this year and the committee chose to recommend CarlX. The system has almost everything we want with the option to work with the company to create things we want but are not currently provided. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Migrated from Millennium to Sierra on November 11, 2019. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

I am eager to find what solutions the Folio team brings forth. Our Sierra ILS is not very adaptable in scale to diminishing workflows in many areas, and so, we end up paying for a premium ILS, when we do not need a premium ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our Consortium [...] provides outstanding customer service but I have no idea what their experience is with Innovative. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

The ILS does what we need it to but I would like to see better/faster development of the product. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

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

We're pretty satisfied overall with III. They have very good technical and customer support in our experience. However, we are huge fans of EBSCO and our just beginning to consider Folio, though we know little about it at this time. In addition, we just found out as of today that Ex Libris (as we are former customers) has bought III, so this will obviously influence our thinking in a big way. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Main pain points are (1) the process of loading serials coverage data from Serials Solutions into the Sierra ERM. It's asynchronous and the process requires too much fooling around with the file and data formats (2) the time lag between sending updated bibliographic records to Summon and Summon's re-indexing process. Our Sierra catalogue is always out of synch with Summon These pain points obviously drive us in the direction of Alma, for lack of another alternative. III have been working on their version for years and a release date is not even estimated. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

La manutenzione ed il supporto sono un po' costosi (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

In [...] , we have had discussions whether to get one library system for all libraries but so far we are still in the phase of discussions, analyzing library services, etc. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra's pricing model is unsustainable for us. They charge for functionality that other vendors include when they develop a product and continue charging a "subscription fee" every year in addition to a large "implementation fee." We are very close to signing a contract with another vendor and will be migrating in 2020. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

Holdings number from IPEDs reporting 2019. The pending acquisition of III by Ex Libris is something that will have an impact on us both as a single institution and as a consortium member. We have already been in some discussions within the consortium about ILS futures and so will quite likely be exploring this question. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are waiting to see what changes the acquisition of Innovative by ProQuest will bring. We may be scrambling to change Discovery vendors at the beginning of the year. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Outcome of the new PQ/EL acquisition of III will be a major factor in future plans. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

After recent acquisition of III by Ex Libris, we have concerns about the future of Sierra. We continue to be frustrated and disappointed by the limited options, bad service, and outdated software that is Sierra. Several features within Sierra are no more developed today than they were 20 years ago. Functions still in character-based software only and should be updated into Sierra by now. Loading of records is still a decade behind where it should be and that is being generous. Concerned about the limited options for an ILS for a large, academic library like ourselves. OPAC/WebPac is slow, outdated, has bugs, and in general is so bad as to be unusable as our main tool for discovery of library materials. Discovery options from III are horrendous, non-functional, and bug-laden in our consortial environment. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

Innovative Interfaces recently purchase by ProQuest/ExLibris (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our contract with our current ILS system is up for renewal in 1-2 years. Within the last couple of weeks we were informed that Innovative Interfaces was purchased by Ex Libris. We had been considering another ILS because Innovative has not been particularly responsive to our questions and concerns, and now that the company was recently bought out, we are unsure whether Ex Libris will continue upgrading and/or hosting this product. As for two systems we are looking at. The OCLC Wise product has, at this time, no library in the U.S. that uses it, though several systems are interested. The Evergreen product is a possibility. Evergreen is Open Source. I am not sure if OCLC Wise is an open source product or not, (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Extra modules rounding out the overall offering are available, but we cannot afford them, and the basic modules we rely on have proven to be less stable than we would like. (Library type: State; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Since October 2019, we were assigned a support contact and our tickets are being resolved on a regular basis. This is an improvement over the level of support we had for the first 10 months of the year. We are definitely concerned about the Innovative acquisition by ProQuest / Ex Libris. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our current ILS (Sierra) has more options than we need. We are most concerned with cost. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We receive our ILS customer support from our consortium, not from the vendor. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our ILS has been shared with the city public library since 1992. That partnership drives a lot of our planning. Some modules are separate and others, e.g., circulation, are combined. Innovative offered us a three-year contract to upgrade to Sierra and the city agreed to a new payment agreement that splits costs equally. It was the only proposal we could afford given recent deep budget cuts. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Feel that perhaps current LMS not fit for size and geographic spread of consortium. Would prefer a LMS with web client rather than desk installed client. Some functionality only filtering in towards end of life. Not great at integrating digital resources. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Estamos cintemplando migrar porque la mantención nos está resultando demasiado costosa y no nos permite crecer en servicios. Adicinalmente, el servicio postventa es muy malo para noosotros. sólo se han contactado con nosotros cuando informamos que pensábamos migrar. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

We are part of a consortium, [...], so any decisions about which ILS we use is based on what the entirety of [...] does. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are waiting to see what happens with III in light of its recent acquisition by Ex Libris. Budget and staffing constraints mean we are always watching what the vendors are developing. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Innovative appears to be moving in the right direction with its development of Inspire Discovery but it remains to be seen if it can compete with Ex Libris Alma. It will be interesting to see what impact the Ex Libris acquisition of Innovative will have on the development of Inspire. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

we are at a crossroads for the ILS (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Since Innovative has been acquired by yet another digital resource I am unwilling to trust that the transition will be smoothe or that the end user will benefit. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Innovative has recently been purchased by Ex Libris so we are interested in any changes (improvements?) that may result from this transaction. Especially since we have found customer service from ExLibris to be lacking. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Hope Innovative gets their act together now that they've been bought out. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

OCLC has made progress in the state of [...] - many academics are fleeing Innovative for them. We're hoping it will streamline workflows and provide a more neutral discovery layer (we're not currently using one). Innovative's customer service has been ok, but they didn't listen to us when we were screaming for shared contracts with our local consortia. We're hopeful OCLC might listen better once others decide to switch. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Will be interested to see what happens to III now that it has been acquired. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

It's no surprise that Innovative has been bought by Ex Libris - I only hope that their customer service improves with this change, though we will be moving to Alma/Primo soon and I look forward to that IMMENSELY. While I realize no system is perfect, I am glad to be going to a system that I've used in the past and from my experiences is better than what we currently have (Sierra). (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 2)

We have been very disappointed at the recent news about the acquisition of III by Ex Libris as we feel this greatly reduces competition in the market, particularly in the ANZ region. Several years ago we deliberately decided to upgrade from Millennium and move to the cloud with Sierra as a holding position in the hope that the market may improve; this now seems less likely than ever. While we are interested in FOLIO it is unlikely that we would go this route on our own and there is currently little interest in consortial approaches since most organisations have already migrated to Alma and are now captive customers of Ex Libris. We are not opposed to continuing with a hybrid architecture composed of products from different vendors but this is making less financial and architectural sense as integration and cybersecurity requirements increase. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Cost is making the ILS unaffordable. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Changes to Encore in relation to SSO Shibboleth has really impacted on us and III did not have a Customer Focus with this change. Support is currently the worst we have ever experienced and this is the key push to use to look at replacing our ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 1)

No system is perfect! (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are part of [...] and have little input into these decisions (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

My library is part of a cooperative, Public LIbraries in [...], so I am not really the one to answer these questions. (Library type: Special; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Many of our responses are low due to the deployment configuration, processes and policies put in place by our cooperative. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

The product is still very good. The support is good, but it would be better if we could have more opportunity for phone conversations. I really like the 24/7/365 support. We have had to use it on holidays. When there are bigger problems, they are very responsive. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

Last year we were in a pretty dark place with Sierra and Innovative Interfaces. We spent several hundred man hours chasing our tales over the course of a year trying to get a fix that was as simple as replacing some hardware. This year is a 180 degree turn around. The changes implemented by Sierra for Tech Support may not yet be perfect, but they are MUCH better at following up, escalating, and resolving issues. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We've found that we put in fewer trouble tickets every year, as Sierra just isn't as buggy now that it's a mature platform. Most tickets are resolved quickly and adequately though occasionally we still get a ticket that's ignored or poorly addressed. It does seem like the techs on their help desk who aren't very helpful don't last, which is good. The last releases of Sierra (since 3.2) have been adding so many features, it's actually challenging to keep up staff training on these, and to realize when we've actually gotten a feature we wanted. We have one consortium member who wants open source ILS (which would require a new discovery layer) but they haven't convinced any of the other members that it's worth the expense and effort of migrating, especially as Sierra is working pretty well right now. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

As part of a consortium, I depend on our collective to come to good decisions regarding our automation products. Over all, we're happy with what we have and it's a vast improvement over previous products. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

Items in collection includes print, media and electronic. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

All our dealings with Innovative go through our consortial membership, [...] . This consortial relationship has been wonderful, in that I dont have to take the time and effort to deal directly with Innovative. (Library type: Medical; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

the library system takes care of all support for the ILS system and we decide as a consortium on replacing systems. the answers provided are guesses on support. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

As a specialized/branch library we can offer input, but the main library and other specialized libraries in the system must agree. We all agree the III leaves much to be desired, but it is a collective decision and the acquisitions departments seem to hold the most weight in decision making. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 4)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

I rated Customer Support at 5 because they have not gotten better or worse in the past year. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Innovative Sierra has never been worth what we paid for it--it is just Millennium with a facelift. We were fooled into thinking III was going to get rid of Millennium and we have paid millions for nothing. Sierra does not offer a mobile responsive webpac unless you pay thousands of dollars extra for Airpac. III abandoned development of mobile responsiveness in Sierra to work on Polaris (this was AFTER we were promised mobile responsiveness in a bundle we purchased) but we were locked into a mult-imillion dollar contract and could not afford Polaris even if we'd had the opportunity to switch. Much of the Sierra documentation is outdated and we have to figure things out ourselves with the help of the listserv. Now III had to be bailed out by ExLibris which is proof that they were never a topnotch ILS provider to begin with--but they have certainly charged us premium prices. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Sierra is oftentimes slow and unresponsive during peak library hours which is frustrating for staff who are trying to be efficient and quickly assist patrons waiting in queue for library services at the circulation desk. The issue mainly happens when searching for a record or patron record in the "browse" portal of the "Check-In" terminal. If this could be resolved it would be most helpful. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Innovative has be great to work with but Sierra leaves a lot to be desired. Much of the customization is painfully difficult to implement let alone even be available to do. They have trouble providing direct information about the system usually found within their Knowledgebase "manual". Most information about basic working or set up can be found, however much of how it works and even some defining facts are missing from the articles, instead giving just a vague summary of the item in question. A major redeeming quality of innovative is it's commitment to support for the client and the customer. Trainings and presence from innovative consulting is second to none. I've never felt more catered to as a trainee when in attendance to their webinars and on site trainings. They really provide a solid ground base for their suite of studies focused on their product. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra has been very slow response times in 2019 & 2020. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 2)

We are concerned about what direction III ill go now that ProQuest owns them. We're glad that they are owned by a library company now, but worried that the service may get worse. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

Innovative has been on shaky ground for a couple of years. It will be interesting to see where ExLibras takes it. We are following FOLIO very closely and with high hopes (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

I find it very discouraging that although OPACs were introduced very early in the online content timeline, they haven't improved nearly as much as they should have over all these years. We're seeing sites like Google and Amazon far outstrip the searching capabilities of the average library OPAC. I have to explain over and over to library users that an author search must be last name first; that the back button can't be used, contrary to all expectation; that subject headings don't work like keywords. We need online catalog searches to function more as Google/Amazon searches do: forgiving of spelling errors and word placement, able to extrapolate from search terms entered to other possibilities that the catalog user might have been looking for, functional with the typical use of buttons on an average keyboard. For decades library catalogers followed intricate rules to classify library materials and make them as easy to find as possible - but in the online world, it's much harder than it should be, even after all this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

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

The fundamental problem is that the LMS, and most LMS, are old systems and not really fit-for-purpose in a cloud-based mobile-first world. We need to provide our patrons and our staff with an experience of the standard they are used to when using modern hardware and applications, on their smartphones, tablets, etc. Our current system falls well short of that standard and I'm not sure if any system is there yet. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

Our big problem is that there is no proper batch processing when migrating files (Library type: Music; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Please, change the name of the library. Now the name is [...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Once they have you, you have no choice but to take what they give you because the costs of migrating are too steep. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Most of the questions do not pertain to me. The [...] entered into the contract and I don't have first hand knowledge about how helpful the support is and if the system was implemented on time. Some talk of Discovery , no talk about open source. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Ex Libris purchased Innovative this year. It is uncertain if Sierra will be supported in the future or if our libraries will have to migrate. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Ex Libris purchased III and therefore it is uncertain about the longevity for Sierra. (Library type: Law; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Recently purchased a module to assist with "Library of Things" -- not yet implemented. If this does work well, will be a huge benefit. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Apart from the first 4 questions, the answers to all the others are 'Don't know'. [...] branch libraries do not deal directly with our LMS supplier - everything is done through library staff responsible for that section. (Library type: Public; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Would like to consider Folio, but development appears to be too slow. Koha looks like a good low cost option, but Alma currently seems to have the most to offer for academic libraries. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

Sierra is outdated but we don't like Ex Libris' walled-garden approach and aren't keen on their strategy of becoming a broader university service provider (because it would make the ILS a subordinate part of a package largely outside the library's control). Previously we wouldn't have considered an open-source system but will be looking seriously at Folio, especially now III has been taken over by Ex Libris. The consolidation of the ILS market is worrying. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

Leadership within this company has been lacking for some years now and sadly, it is the product, and the customers who have suffered. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We have recently (as in the last 2 years) moved to Sierra from Millennium which has put the LMS into the cloud. Sierra is such an improvement on MIllennium it is impossible to be totally objective about the system. I have to say the implementation went about as smooth as it possibly could so I was very impressed by that. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

Library is part of a consortium which evaluates and determines ILS products. All ILS vendors have strengths and weaknesses - it's a matter of determining which fits your consortium/library needs best at the time. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Our library finds Sierra takes a long time to load and login in the morning. We have had to ask users to log off the public computers so Sierra can load. We also have difficulty with the system "hanging" in between functions. Sierra will shut down if it remains idle for too long. Sierra's response time is very slow. There are reports that can be downloaded from the system as a pdf file but we would prefer them to be an Excel file so we can filter the information we want to access. The search function is cumbersome, you have to know exactly how a title was entered. The AI search algorithm and Expert System leave little to no room for ambiguity. (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Sierra has been good for us, but it is very expensive. Customer support is not great and training very expensive. Looking forward to seeing the first roll-outs of Folio. We have signed a 3 year contract with ExLibris/Innovative to give us time to clean up our catalog to transition to a new system. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Innovative has had customer service issues for a while now. I appreciate the effort they have made to improve the response and quality of service. It was unfortunate that many people with deep institutional and product knowledge were lost over the years to cost cutting. Some of the people who were newly hired a few years ago have really grown into good product support staff. I no longer fear getting support from outside the main office. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We are currently in the process of migrating to from Sierra to Atriuum (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

We had Sierra for number of years but we are not benefiting from its fuller functionalities such as absence of reporting module poses challenges in obtaining complex data. Annual support contract cost is too high and we can achieve far more better functionalities from the competitors’ products in less price. Innovative needs to review its rigid pricing strategy. Academic sector libraries may consider switching from Innovative. It’s long-promised discovery is launched but its possible merger with ExLibris in early 2020 has raised eye-brows among the libraries, thinking to migrate. Monopolies have their own dynamics and sometimes these doesn’t serve the interests of the customers. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Two-three years ago Innovative's support was downright horrible with unanswered requests and service commitments unmet. The past 18 months has been a complete change. Requests are answered promptly and meaningful explanations are provided for my questions. Really wish they would update their WebPacPro product. We don't anticipate going to an article level discovery layer, so we're stuck with the outdated looking and functioning WebPacPro. The code behind it is an accessibility nightmare. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We recently completed a migration from Millennium to Sierra as of November 2019. Notable improvements were immediately realized. Easy migration for staff was also noted and appreciated. Vendor was very attentive during the migration process. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Overall, the installation was a little rocky, the staff is not happy with frequent slowdowns, trying to create lists in this system is an absolute headache and that is a real problem. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

The merger of III and Exlibris has raised questions about the future of Sierra. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Given that Innovative has just been acquired by Ex Libris (a ProQuest company) it wil be intersting to see what changes if any occur in product development, service and support, and strategic direction in 2020 and beyond (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I actually don't know if the system was on schedule and according to contract, as it predated me by many years. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

It seems promising that ProQuest has brought Innovative Interfaces into its fold of products. "Young" Sierra libraries like us expect ProQuest will continue to support AND develop Sierra for several more years. Also, it would be very smart for ProQuest to rejuvenate III's WebBridge openURL / pathfinder product, an incredibly powerful and satisfying tool helping librarians improve and quality-control full text linking. ( I suggest they get the retired guru B. Duncan to lead it! ) (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

With the recent purchase of Innovative by ProQuest, we are starting to prepare for assessing other options. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

We are a little bit concerned because of Innovative acquisition by ExLibris. It is hard to preview which impact will it have on Innovative's products, services and finally on customers like us. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Innovative Interfaces, Inc. has been slow to develop and roll out its updated Library Services Platform (Inspire), and Sierra has proven repeatedly frustrating to our efforts to modernize our services and workflows in ERM, acquisitions, and circulation. In concert with ever-ballooning licensing and support costs, Sierra just isn't providing the value we need and expect from our Library Services Platform. We will be moving to FOLIO in Summer of 2020, working with EBSCO as our hosting and managed support vendor. We're excited about this transition, and thrilled to be part of such a dynamic open source community in FOLIO and the OLF. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

ILS