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 2020 results according to the type and size of the library.

2020 Sierra Responses by Sector
SierraallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS2906.17 476.43445.89275.22806.71306.33105.300195.37
ILSFunctionality2896.45 476.49446.18275.22807.00306.60105.300186.17
PrintFunctionality2887.37 467.52457.58277.11787.31307.23106.900197.37
ElectronicFunctionality2914.99 475.06454.78273.70805.55305.53103.600194.05
SatisfactionCustomerSupport2845.93 466.46455.42275.63766.25295.8695.110195.16
CompanyLoyalty2895.51 475.51455.09273.93806.55305.6795.330184.83



2020 Survey Results
Product: Sierra Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction290 2 2 12 19 13 33 50 94 53 12 76.177
ILS Functionality289 1 3 9 8 16 28 52 92 61 19 76.457
Print Functionality288 1 4 3 6 12 30 62 122 48 87.378
Electronic Functionality291 12 10 23 32 38 43 48 46 29 10 64.995
Company Satisfaction283 5 6 17 16 23 41 56 62 41 16 75.756
Support Satisfaction284 2 10 15 17 14 34 67 60 41 24 65.936
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty289 19 13 14 12 24 46 40 51 38 32 75.516
Open Source Interest264 60 18 22 20 13 35 28 22 24 14 04.054

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS299 9331.10%
Considering new Interface299 3511.71%
System Installed on time?299 00.00%

Average Collection size: 760968

TypeCount
Public124
Academic127
School0
Consortium19
Special5

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0006
[2] 10,001-100,00077
[3] 100,001-250,00077
[4] 250,001-1,000,00069
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00053
[6] over 10,000,0012



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 13433.33%
Considering new Interface402 6215.42%
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

2020 : gen: 6.17 company 5.75 loyalty 5.51 support 5.93

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 (survey2020)

we really need a product that we can manage and that provides a price range for small/medium public libraries such as ours. I really don't want to migrate but we are being priced out of Sierra (hosted service costs, upgrading to the new product, etc). We would prefer to share the costs and management with a larger system with staff dedicated to technology and the ILS. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

Potentially, having III and the former Serials Solutions under the same ownership is a dream come true. We would expect full integration between the two suites of products. If this does not happen, then there is no point in not migrating over to Alma. Although Sierra is better for print materials, we are moving fast to a mostly digital library so Sierra's advantage is becoming irrelevant. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We will be migrating to FOLIO in June 2021. FOLIO will be hosted by EBSCO. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Overall we are very happy with our current vendors. As to open source solutions, my impression is money saved on product is spent on hours supporting it. That is from reading the literature and speaking with people. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 9)

We were very happy with our previous Koha ILS and the service we received from ByWater Solutions. For our purposes, Koha was far more intuitive and efficient for staff to use, and we had greater control over its administration. Our move to Sierra was prompted entirely by an institution-wide effort to align services between the medical campus and the main campus. Their collection is far larger and for that reason among others, we had to migrate to theirs instead of them changing to ours. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

Also we are now talking with other [...] libraries to form an expanded consortium and migrate to a shared ILS and / or Discovery platform. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

Sierra has been a great system to work with and provides basic tasks we need to run our system. Sierra is however limiting by the consistent issues we face with the product. Troubles in public catalog speeds and option availability are actually better problems than last year of constantly dropping all connections every now and again. The community is wonderful, but very hard to keep connected with. You must join a paid membership group in an age where Slack and Discord exist, which freely connect communities to talk about other Sierra based libraries, troubleshoot issues, offer advice, feedback, and talk about ideas of how libraries are using Sierra. Though many of these communications are dealt with in different "modules" of innovative such as: CS Direct, or idea lab. The actual communication between customers and the transparency of how Sierra is working for other libraries leaves our library in the dark. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We share our catalog with the main university and our other law school. All ILS and Discovery decisions are made at the university. The [...] did implement its own discovery service with EBSCO in an effort to provide more targeted results for law materials. It is not quite as successful as we were hoping. Sierra upgrades/updates are usually problematic for our library location. Thankfully support from Innovative has been top notch in providing solutions when our IT department cannot. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

The rating for going with this vendor again is based solely on the fact that the other public library product they have, Polaris, would likely meet the needs of our library. It is not a reflection on their effectiveness as a vendor. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

When we told Sierra we were leaving, they may no attempt to lower the price to try to keep us. They also had a very expensive package for them to migrate our records. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

If we remain with Sierra I will be urging that we implement Summon as our Discovery. Most of our decision revolves around cost considerations. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

[...] (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 9)

We just switched from Encore to EDS native this year so that we could have more control. We are MUCH happier with EDS native. Still tweaking things. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are an early adopter of III's Vega, their new discovery interface. We are testing with staff, hope to roll that out to library patrons sometime in the first half of next year (2021). BiblioCommons would probably be the ideal discovery layer, but we cannot afford that. We are happy with III's service and really don't have a desire to change platforms. My only real complaint is that we purchase products (Encore, MyLibrary app, etc.) and then III doesn't improve much, develops a new product (Vega, some new mobile app that hasn't been clarified) which they then charge you for (again). That is frustrating. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We love our Pika layer, but I skipped that section because we're a public library. The number of items in our collection jumped considerably this year because last year I forgot to include digital materials. This year, I remembered. :) (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

Innovative is still working out its relationship with ProQuest but its pricing continues to be terrible. We cannot move forward in technology/services because every change from Innovative costs money. I am wondering if Sierra ILS will be around much longer as Alma is the predominant ILS for higher education. Why support two systems if there is a clear favorite? (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

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

Not sure why the discovery questions are geared toward academics as discovery services are important to public libraries too. We use Encore and it is offered to both public and academic libraries and isn't ideal for either. We will be moving to Vega, also by Innovative, but it has been developed specifically for public libraries, although I feel that is an oversight as well. Good discovery systems for multi-type consortia are very much needed and there doesn't seem to be much concern for that in the marketplace. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

I was slightly confused by the question, "How do you rate the service's objectivity relative to coverage of resources across publishers? (Is there any bias shown for any publisher or aggregator?" I rated this highly because we do believe EDS is bias towards EBSCO resources in its search and display behavior. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 1)

After Innovative Interfaces Inc (III) acquired by Exlibris or ProQuest Group, there are some initiatives III were doing in building a NextGen ILS has stopped and somehow left many academic libraries to start looking for NextGen ILS elsewhere. That leaves many libraries to look beyond ALMA provided by ProQuest Group. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 3)

We've been shopping for a new ILS for a long time; Sierra largely does what we need but we would hope for something better by now. Alma was cost prohibitive the first time we looked at it (and not different enough from Sierra to warrant switching), and we have high hopes for FOLIO, particularly the customizable aspects of it (although perhaps we'd need dedicated personnel for some of this work). We feel constrained and not very satisfied with the current ILS offerings out there, and the field of options - and vendors - only appears to be shrinking. We're dispirited and basically just maintaining the status quo rather than doing anything innovative (pun not intended!) with our system. We also wonder whether our Summon instance could be improved with a different underlying ILS that we could better connect to our holdings. Additionally, we would like that Summon too could be more customizable/adaptable to our specific needs. Essentially, we're feeling like there isn't much out there so we're just treading water. Making the best of what we have. Is that where libraries are stuck these days? (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

While Innovative has been a great partner to work with over the years we find a better match for academic library needs in the Alma LSP. Since the acquisition of Polaris, Innovative has tilted towards the public library market and specialized modules needed by academic libraries, such as course reserves. authentication, electronic resource management and KB, and link resolver have not received much development attention. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Going to be a challenging year on the ILS front. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

The lack of staff precludes major changes in our ILS at the moment. It is all we can do to get it into the cloud at the moment. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Not totally confident that open source is ready for prime time for a large system like ours. Not sure that they have the resources needed to train staff and perform a seamless transition (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

[...] does not have a Discovery tool. It is very unlikely an open source product would be considered, although there are advantages, due to lean staffing levels it would be close to impossible.to create/maintain. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 3)

When you ask "Approximate number of items in the library's collection" do you mean physical items or physical + digital items? (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Folio not mature enough to seriously consider. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

The buyout of Innovative by ProQuest further consolidates the market providing even less options for libraries. These private equity buyouts continue to hinder already anemic product development. (We have already signed a contract for OCLC Wise.) (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

Having just migrated, we wouldn't consider any switch for some time. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

we are part of a statewide consortium and are a very small library, so we use what is needed in order to remain a member of the consortium (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our system is very dated. We'd like to see more more modern look and functionality. It is feature rich, but sometimes those features don't work as well as we'd like. (Library type: State; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Most of the premium ILS is good but too expensive especially for a special/corporate library in which library service is not the main business in the organization. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are not happy with library discovery products. They are difficult to use and cost way too much for what they do. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Very difficult to make a large U.S. based company to make changes to their product to provide a better service to Irish customers (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our consortium office is terrific at resolving our issues. I have not had much experience reaching out directly to III (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are overall generally satisfied with Innovative Interfaces although there are features that we have yet to be implemented and tested at this time. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Thank you to Marshall Breeding for librarytechnology.org and all his great contributions!!! (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

We belong to the [...] and members of [...] are involved with the public library and academic working groups of Folio. The intent is to help Folio develop in a way that supports a multi type library consortium (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are happy with our ILS in general, but the cost is getting more difficult every contract renewal. In addition, the system has grown and developed far beyond and in areas that don't really apply to us, so it's like we're driving a fully loaded Lexus or other high-end vehicle when we really just need a dependable Chevy, Buick, etc. We still need a certain robustness in basic functionality, including some key customizations of content, but most of the less-expensive systems either aren't sophisticated enough, or, in the case of OCLC's WMS, has a master-record structure that would possibly eliminate those key customizations. (Library type: Law; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 7)

As a relatively small academic library we are interested in open source solutions but would need to feel confident that we had the internal and community support required to successfully implement FOLIO with Blacklight front end before we could commit. Additionally, because we have a shared catalog with two other academics, we would need to migrate in concert with one another. So, while we are deeply interested in FOLIO, we are not close to being able to commit at this point. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

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

We've already signed a contract for FOLIO. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

If our institution decided to go with an open source vendor, we would contract migration/implementation and ongoing support services from a vendor who supports the product. In the case of FOLIO, that means looking at Ebsco or ByWater. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have had a rocky relationship with Innovative Interfaces but would like to acknowledge that they did step up during the initial COVID lockdowns providing useful resources and support for libraries around the world. Their acquisition by Proquest came as a surprise, and we still wonder whether support for Sierra will be affected despite their reassurances that it will continue to be developed. (Library type: State; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 5)

For our Academic Discovery Service, we answered for our in-house custom interface, as that is becoming the default interface right now. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

III did a little better this year with Sierra releases coming out with some long-requested enhancements, even though Sierra is still lacking in e-resources functionality. I feel that the newer systems are too expensive to migrate to and unsustainable to maintain with 5% cost increases for a library our size. We're staying on Sierra due to Covid-19 budget reasons and waiting to see if Folio will develop enough for us to feel comfortable to move to it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

We have been deeply dissatisfied with the support we have received from iii in the past... and our customer care representative seems to change annually. However, within the past year we have noticed an increase in the responsiveness to any of our open tickets. We are frustrated at how any additional features come with hefty price tags in addition to the large amount we already pay annually. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

Our satisfaction with Sierra has fallen a lot since Innovative were acquired by Proquest - that is what is prompting us to consider moving to Folio. We probably would be pursuing this much harder if it weren't for the pandemic. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

We are part of a national consortium. We tender for a new ILS every five years. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

I have come to appreciate Innovative's Sierra system now that we are looking at an open source library services platform that must be built from scratch. I like learning new things but open source seems to require significant time spent learning a tremendous amount of computer coding. (Library type: State; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Our previous director purchased and migrated the library to Sierra without consulting any one with the knowledge of what the library actually needed. We are paying for parts of the ILS that we do not need and will not need in our service to the public. This ILS has become a financial burden and will have to thoroughly discussed with financial stakeholders and Library Management. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

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

Because the [...] is a member of [...], we must use Sierra and EBSCO's Discovery Service. Only if the whole consortium changes can we change. Not everyone is happy with Innovative and there is talk of changing, but that would take years before that would happen. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

We have both implemented both the OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service and the EBSCO Discovery Service (EDS) through our statewide consortium. (Library type: Medical; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Support and road mapped features from iii have improved since being acquired by Ex Libris. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Sierra's ERM is the biggest thorn in our side. It's ineffective. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

[...] We have worked with our library automation partner for several years now and have a great working relationship with them. Though our ILS meet most of our library's needs, there is room for improvement (which can be made through their innovation process). Overall, we are happy with their services and would continue to use them in the future. (Library type: Public; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

we hope to have Vega in place 2021 (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We would need dedicated staff to implement an open source catalog. We do not have the funding presently to switch to an open source ILS. We considered it before the pandemic and found it not feasible for this reason. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 2)

Innovative's support has gone from bad a few years ago to exceptional in the past year or so. Our main issue with Innovative/Sierra is that the public interface is woefully outdated and has accessibility issues. There is limited room to customize the look and functions. It appears III has given up on trying to modernize it. My assumption is that now that III has been acquired by ProQuest, Sierra has a limited lifespan. I can't see ProQuest keeping Sierra and it's Ex Libris ILS offerings indefinitely. Seems like a product line will eventually be sunsetted in the name of reducing redundancy. I assume that it will be Sierra that will go. So while we're not actively looking for a new ILS, the possibility of having to migrate in the next 2-3 years is in the back of our minds. Also, as our library reduces it's subscriptions to integrating resources what drew us to Innovative two decades ago--its robust serials module--is no longer that important. We're getting to the point where Sierra is more ILS than we need. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We would consider a supported open source solution since our internal IT would not be able to support it. (Library type: Law; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Empezamos a implementar Alma/Primo en setiembre de 2020 y vamos a salir en producción en julio de 2021. No tengo aún conocimiento suficiente de las nuevas herramientas para valorarla, por lo que he decidido responder la encuesta sobre Sierra/Encore, productos con los que ahora mismo aún trabajamos. (Library type: National; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

[...] is migrating from Sierra to Alma by now. We can't considerate about de new system yet. We still rate SIERRA and EDS-Encore (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We just went live with Sierra in December. We are still implementing new modules. Implementation team has been helpful. Trainer is excellent. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Sierra ILS is not meant for managing electronic resources. It's primarily for print collections. Innovative's customer service lacks the responsiveness we need. They don't respond to inquires until 2 weeks later with little or no engagement. It's quite frustrating. They promised us to implement SSO but that hasn't happened. We've been trying to get it to work since 2018. (Library type: For-profit Educational; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

While [...] was a great consortium that benefited our college for many years, AccessIT and LIRN provided us with an incentive to reduce our consortium and ILS costs in order to invest in our own electronic and print collections more fully. We were not terribly thrilled with Sierra for our small library. Unfortunately, the ILS marketplace is not rich with products for smaller academics. We think AccessIt will meet our needs well. (Library type: Theology; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

ILS