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 2021 results according to the type and size of the library.

2021 Sierra Responses by Sector
SierraallAcademicPublicSchoolConsortium
smallmediumlargesmallmediumlarge
navgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavgnavg
SatisfactionLevelILS2746.22 356.40265.77175.06566.43336.64107.401146.14
ILSFunctionality2736.42 356.69265.88175.24566.57336.76107.301146.07
PrintFunctionality2717.37 357.71267.46177.35556.91337.3687.501147.64
ElectronicFunctionality2694.99 345.21254.48173.41555.31325.41105.401144.64
SatisfactionCustomerSupport2706.17 336.24265.35176.71556.31336.39107.201146.07
CompanyLoyalty2675.63 325.47265.04174.94536.04336.06107.501145.43



2021 Survey Results
Product: Sierra Response Distribution Statistics
CategoryResponses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ModeMeanMedian
ILS Satisfaction274 4 3 10 5 18 28 63 81 49 13 76.227
ILS Functionality273 3 4 4 9 9 36 51 79 62 16 76.427
Print Functionality271 1 1 1 4 18 32 70 92 52 87.378
Electronic Functionality269 10 14 20 23 37 48 37 41 30 9 54.995
Company Satisfaction270 6 7 8 11 21 38 45 72 46 16 75.996
Support Satisfaction270 3 7 11 10 18 32 47 65 55 22 76.177
Support Improvement0 00.00
Company Loyalty267 22 4 9 11 21 42 38 57 39 24 75.636
Open Source Interest256 43 20 27 21 15 33 28 24 15 18 04.304

CategoryTotalYespercent
Considering new ILS279 9634.41%
Considering new Interface279 238.24%
System Installed on time?279 00.00%

Average Collection size: 1263251

TypeCount
Public104
Academic80
School1
Consortium14
Special2

Size CategoryCount
[1] Under 10,0004
[2] 10,001-100,00065
[3] 100,001-250,00073
[4] 250,001-1,000,00073
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,00048
[6] over 10,000,0018



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 9431.44%
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

2021 : gen: 6.22 company 5.99 loyalty 5.63 support 6.17

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 (survey2021)

Migration from Voyager to Sierra was completed in June of 2021. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 9)

We do not now nor anticipate having in the future the technical staff to implement, administer, and maintain an open source ILS/LSP or discovery service. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Our library would need to find a service provide to host and support an open source product. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

How effective is this product in managing your library's electronic resources? Not applicable: Electronic resources managed separately from ILS. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

We would need a library systems office in order to implement an open source ILS/Discovery product (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

III's Sierra system is not functional for a multi-type consortia where each institution has varying circulation rules and policies. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 0)

Sierra has been a hot and cold relationship, as the parent company Innovative changes frequently. The updates to the actual ILS have only been positive, however the issues that come with managing Sierra hold us back as a library. Frequently we are having to deal with scheduled email notification outages. The issues we ever have with the company are always ultimately addressed in either a major update or through their ticketing system. The ticketing from Sierra has also seen many changes. From unresponsive tickets, to a new urgency system where we can escalate depending on need, the customer support has always been a problem. Though recently the tickets are being handled with great haste. Some familiar issues they have always had are adding attachments to the tickets which require workarounds to send them the documents needed to help identify the issue we are facing. Overall the direction for Innovative is a positive one, so it seems the purchase from ProQuest helped its customers. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

Our libraries have not switched to the updated version of Discovery. They do not have icons to distinguish the various source types which we feel are needed for our students. We've asked EBSCO to put the icons back in the new version. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 8)

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

Estamos en el proceso de migración desde Sierra a SirsiDynix, esperamos estar en producción a mediados de enero 2022. (Library type: Special; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

We will be fully migrated to FOLIO starting 1 February 2022. We will no longer subscribe to Sierra, due to the uncertainty of its future in the academic environment and the other ProQuest products are too expensive. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

If the program registration component was updated and more robust this would satisfy our overall needs much better. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

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

We have been very disappointed with the customer service from both our current ILS vendor (iii) and our current discovery vendor (Ex Libris). After the merger announced last year, we have very little confidence that the overall performance, services, or support will improve. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

Where our consortium goes, so goes our library. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are members of the [...] , which has sent out an RFP for the ILS. (Library type: Theology; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We don't have the technical expertise on the staff at present to support an open source ILS. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

There are many positive sides to Sierra which can be explained as reliable, customizable, and understandable. The systems servers are robust in the amount that they can process and rarely do we have outages. The system itself has been somewhat easy to understand and figure out. The manual is vast and explains most all of how things work, though every so often we are left questioning the support staff on how or why something is behaving not as expected. Some features are lacking further customization such as SMS notifications, or the Item category A—D which is how the system limits the groups of items and their total checkout. For the most part, the system allows us to manage our database of materials and patrons wonderfully. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

We're very hopeful to move to a cloud-hosting ILS as soon as possible, as we are currently running on old servers. We are also disappointed in the cashiering integration options provided by most ILS vendors and would like to see an ILS with a functional built-in cashiering system that can take and process payments instead of these "commerce modules" that seem to be the rage but that don't actually process or integrate with any other systems without massive backend development required. Open source would appeal to us more if it didn't appear to be so time-intensive, as we are a small library without a dedicated ILS team. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

At this point we are looking for our consortium to provide support for our ILS platform. Ease of resource sharing is very important to our consortium. Our current vendor is unsurpassed at this function. Because it is now owned by a company that also owns another ILS (leading to concerns about long term support), our consortium is undertaking due diligence to explore options. (Library type: Museum; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 8)

[..] is a public library that mainly serves the [...] community, thus the section for academic libraries may not apply 100%. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

With ever-tightening budgets, it is increasingly difficult to afford a system like Alma or even WMS if you are a larger single-institution library. Very much looking towards Folio. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

For the question that asked if we would work with our ILS vendor again, we would have loved to answer 0. However, this company has bought up all of the ILS products that our public library consortium is willing to consider, so it appears we would have no choice. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

While we were closed because of the pandemic, we used APIs provided by open source providers like HathiTrust and Internet Archive to mimic the functionality of discovery layers by inserting URLs of freely-available ebooks into our bib records. (Library type: Museum; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 8)

I have less than a year of experience at this library and using (cataloging in) Sierra. I find Sierra not to be very usable. The help manual and training are generally a waste of my time. It seems like there should be more robust global editing options than are available as well. I'm also generally impressed with eds' coverage. It should be easier to limit resources (in admin) by language. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

Is the discovery portion of this survey for public libraries and public library systems? I ask because it lists undergraduates and faculty. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 6)

Of course, every institution has their A-list staff that go out of the way to highly perform to give excellent customer service. However, Innovative has gone through many organizational changes and it isn't as well-oiled as it used to be. A few upgrades/migrations that used to be a blip in our day are now resulting in several days of downtime to find errors made. Disheartening and very frustrating for staff and patrons alike. (Library type: Public; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 5)

Sierra ticket resolution is spotty. Sometimes tickets are resolved very quickly; sometimes tickets take forever to solve. It seems like maybe they are short-handed and if the long-time, knowledgeable support representatives are swamped, then newer, less knowledgeable staff members are handling tickets that they are not equipped to solve. I’ve had to escalate several tickets to finally get them handed over to senior representatives. Our migration from an onsite server to a hosted cloud server and upgrade from Millennium to Sierra went fairly smoothly. We were given a good price break to go hosted and upgrade. Innovative even threw in about a dozen extra modules in a package deal. The installation of the add-on modules was messy, protracted, and frustrating. The software migration timing was planed well ahead, and we were consulted as to the scheduling. However, with the new module bundling, we were not consulted at all ahead of time how the installation of modules was to be scheduled. It was planned without consultation and without consideration of how we, as the customer, would have time to complete our tasks. It was planned solely on how fast the implementation team could install things. While our trainer was an expert and very patient and responsive, training for several modules happened simultaneously making it more difficult to learn and confusing. There was no time to practice our training, because we immediately had to move on to the next module. The most frustrating part was being given outright wrong information by the systems engineer who was obviously very inexperienced and maybe should have been under closer supervision by a senior engineer. SDA is very slow in connecting to the hosted server; however, other users report the same slowness. The web version of the backend client does not have all of the capability of the desktop app. SMS notices are kind of clunky and have limited customizability. (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

Kudos to Marshall for the info., service and support he helps provide to libraries, and has over the years! Thank you! (Library type: Academic; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

This collection doesn't have any electronic resources. Since N/A is not an option, I used 0 instead on the question pertaining to the ILSs effectiveness in managing our electronic resources. (Library type: State; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 8)

I am part of a statewide college system as well as a statewide library consortium. I have no contact with our ILS vendors, only our college system IT and state library systems support staff. I am not satisfied with the ILS we have, and I don't like that most of our e-Resources are not integrated into it, but there is little I can do about it. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 6)

We are part of a consortium, so any changes that are made must be made with consideration of our participation in the consortium. (Library type: Academic; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

we are in a consortium - if consortium switches ILS vendors that could be the major factor for our site. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Excellent batch processing capabilities; very responsive customer service and ticketing system; excellent help from Martha Rice Sanders (Library type: Theology; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 8)

Interest in FOLIO would increase if it implements multi-tenant consortial functionality. (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

Our system would struggle with staffing to support an open source ILS. (Library type: ; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 6)

I'm unsure of what we should count for number of items in library's collection. Is this all item records only in the ILS? Or do we include Overdrive records, Hoopla, etc. that are in our discovery layer Pika, but not in the ILS? (Library type: Consortium; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 7)

Recent acquisition of Innovative by Proquest has resulted in a change in strategic direction away from academic libraries towards public libraries. New system Vega is not targeted at academic libraries so expect to see a continued shift away from Sierra towards other systems for academic libraries. (Library type: Academic; collection size: large; ils satisfaction: 4)

We have just completed a full assessment of current ILS options and have selected Alma/Primo as our new solution. We are in the process of moving our data and implementing it, and expect to go live with it in June 2022. This certainly colored my responses to the above! Please let me know if you have any questions about my responses or our current situation. Thank you, Marshall! (Library type: Academic; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 2)

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

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

We are very small, and believe our consortium to be of great value. We could not afford the services without their help. Voyager by Innovative is scheduled via consortium (Library type: ; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are in the middle of a 2 year long migration from Sierra to FOLIO/EDS. The data has to be transformed into a completely different architecture. Coincidentally this is happening during COVID so working from home allows more time to study the software development process and contribute to FOLIO bug identification. For FOLIO, be prepared to learn all about Agile software development methods. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 4)

Some of the [...] libraries migrated to Koha. Other [...] libraries are continuing with Sierra. (Library type: Academic; collection size: very small; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are migrating to SirsiDynix Symphony in May 2022. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 4)

[...] (Library type: Public; collection size: small; ils satisfaction: 5)

We don't feel that this ILS is a bad product necessarily but maybe that it doesn't complete the needs of public libraries. Also, it oftentimes has many hiccups after updates and sometimes bugs are not fixed for an extended period of time. Creating lists in this system is not reliable whatsoever. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 6)

In reference to the electronic resources grade, we considered Innovative's reticence in developing a solution that allows Overdrive records to appear in the catalogue without record loads, as is currently possible with Sirsi-Dynix. (Library type: Public; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 7)

We are looking for a less expensive ILS that provides better communication with patrons through updated notices options (such as SMS). We would love to have a discovery layer or even better an ILS with good discovery built-in. We like our current ILS' functionality in terms of patron & item records, holds, reports, integration with 3rd party vendors, etc. Our current ILS has provided significantly better support over the past 2 years which has made a huge difference in getting better functionality and keeping the product working. (Library type: ; collection size: medium; ils satisfaction: 5)

While the ProQuest buyout of Innovative did seem to result in a number of long term bugs being resolved, we also had several bug tickets closed with a status of "Won't fix." We wonder how the Clarivate purchase will impact support. We hold no hope for meaningful product development, though - just more new skins developed from poor UX research (if any at all) for the same antiquated backend architecture and business logic. (Library type: ; collection size: very large; ils satisfaction: 3)

ILS