Library Technology Guides

Documents, Databases, News, and Commentary

Select another Product Report:

Statistical Report for Sierra

2022 Survey Results
Product: Sierra		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	267	6	4	6	13	14	32	49	87	39	17	7	6.14	7
ILS Functionality	266	2	1	5	14	20	29	56	71	46	22	7	6.30	7
Print Functionality	266		2	1	3	4	19	32	68	92	45	8	7.27	8
Electronic Functionality	266	18	9	28	28	33	41	37	37	23	12	5	4.73	5
Company Satisfaction	265	8	8	11	10	19	39	51	72	34	13	7	5.77	6
Support Satisfaction	262	6	9	10	9	21	23	54	62	49	19	7	6.02	6
Support Improvement	0											0	0.00
Company Loyalty	265	18	7	8	19	22	42	29	55	35	30	7	5.61	6
Open Source Interest	228	36	18	20	17	12	38	18	26	19	14	5	4.45	5

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	274	126	45.99%
Considering new Interface	274	51	18.61%
System Installed on time?	274	0	0.00%

Average Collection size:		961637

Type	Count
Public	97
Academic	118
School	1
Consortium	17
Special	4

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	5
[2] 10,001-100,000	63
[3] 100,001-250,000	55
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	79
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	56
[6] over 10,000,001	4

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
Sierra	all		Academic						Public						School		Consortium
			small		medium		large		small		medium		large
	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg	n	avg
SatisfactionLevelILS	274	6.22	35	6.40	26	5.77	17	5.06	56	6.43	33	6.64	10	7.40	1		14	6.14
ILSFunctionality	273	6.42	35	6.69	26	5.88	17	5.24	56	6.57	33	6.76	10	7.30	1		14	6.07
PrintFunctionality	271	7.37	35	7.71	26	7.46	17	7.35	55	6.91	33	7.36	8	7.50	1		14	7.64
ElectronicFunctionality	269	4.99	34	5.21	25	4.48	17	3.41	55	5.31	32	5.41	10	5.40	1		14	4.64
SatisfactionCustomerSupport	270	6.17	33	6.24	26	5.35	17	6.71	55	6.31	33	6.39	10	7.20	1		14	6.07
CompanyLoyalty	267	5.63	32	5.47	26	5.04	17	4.94	53	6.04	33	6.06	10	7.50	1		14	5.43

2021 Survey Results
Product: Sierra		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	274	4	3	10	5	18	28	63	81	49	13	7	6.22	7
ILS Functionality	273	3	4	4	9	9	36	51	79	62	16	7	6.42	7
Print Functionality	271	1		1	1	4	18	32	70	92	52	8	7.37	8
Electronic Functionality	269	10	14	20	23	37	48	37	41	30	9	5	4.99	5
Company Satisfaction	270	6	7	8	11	21	38	45	72	46	16	7	5.99	6
Support Satisfaction	270	3	7	11	10	18	32	47	65	55	22	7	6.17	7
Support Improvement	0											0	0.00
Company Loyalty	267	22	4	9	11	21	42	38	57	39	24	7	5.63	6
Open Source Interest	256	43	20	27	21	15	33	28	24	15	18	0	4.30	4

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	279	96	34.41%
Considering new Interface	279	23	8.24%
System Installed on time?	279	0	0.00%

Average Collection size:		1263251

Type	Count
Public	104
Academic	80
School	1
Consortium	14
Special	2

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	4
[2] 10,001-100,000	65
[3] 100,001-250,000	73
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	73
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	48
[6] over 10,000,001	8

2020 Survey Results
Product: Sierra		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	290	2	2	12	19	13	33	50	94	53	12	7	6.17	7
ILS Functionality	289	1	3	9	8	16	28	52	92	61	19	7	6.45	7
Print Functionality	288	1		4	3	6	12	30	62	122	48	8	7.37	8
Electronic Functionality	291	12	10	23	32	38	43	48	46	29	10	6	4.99	5
Company Satisfaction	283	5	6	17	16	23	41	56	62	41	16	7	5.75	6
Support Satisfaction	284	2	10	15	17	14	34	67	60	41	24	6	5.93	6
Support Improvement	0											0	0.00
Company Loyalty	289	19	13	14	12	24	46	40	51	38	32	7	5.51	6
Open Source Interest	264	60	18	22	20	13	35	28	22	24	14	0	4.05	4

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	299	94	31.44%
Considering new Interface	299	35	11.71%
System Installed on time?	299	0	0.00%

Average Collection size:		760968

Type	Count
Public	124
Academic	127
School	0
Consortium	19
Special	5

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	6
[2] 10,001-100,000	77
[3] 100,001-250,000	77
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	69
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	53
[6] over 10,000,001	2

2019 Survey Results
Product: Sierra		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	393	3	6	18	20	31	59	78	102	59	17	7	5.92	6
ILS Functionality	395	2	4	13	28	27	41	75	101	80	24	7	6.18	7
Print Functionality	393	6	3	2	8	13	19	42	119	116	65	7	7.06	7
Electronic Functionality	391	13	28	35	27	42	65	63	64	43	11	5	4.96	5
Company Satisfaction	392	14	12	29	29	45	54	56	88	51	14	7	5.34	6
Support Satisfaction	391	14	13	28	37	38	64	54	81	46	16	7	5.26	6
Support Improvement	380	13	9	13	28	52	113	35	53	46	18	5	5.27	5
Company Loyalty	390	35	14	20	22	40	59	50	70	49	31	7	5.22	6
Open Source Interest	385	85	35	53	36	43	42	25	24	20	22	0	3.39	3

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	402	134	33.33%
Considering new Interface	402	62	15.42%
System Installed on time?	402	351	87.31%

Average Collection size:		823706

Type	Count
Public	145
Academic	189
School	1
Consortium	22
Special	4

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	11
[2] 10,001-100,000	104
[3] 100,001-250,000	83
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	109
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	74
[6] over 10,000,001	5

2018 Survey Results
Product: Sierra		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	437	12	3	15	16	30	50	92	120	71	28	7	6.09	7
ILS Functionality	437	3	8	5	21	27	49	76	121	93	34	7	6.38	7
Print Functionality	434	3	5	5	8	10	21	51	113	147	71	8	7.13	8
Electronic Functionality	427	29	15	30	30	53	57	78	73	39	23	6	5.06	5
Company Satisfaction	438	20	16	23	31	32	55	94	94	50	23	6	5.45	6
Support Satisfaction	435	26	17	28	31	39	70	72	87	48	17	7	5.17	6
Support Improvement	428	29	12	15	32	62	122	55	46	31	24	5	4.93	5
Company Loyalty	430	39	23	23	21	28	72	57	72	55	40	5	5.23	6
Open Source Interest	426	100	57	54	32	46	55	28	25	18	11	0	3.07	3

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	443	95	21.44%
Considering new Interface	443	57	12.87%
System Installed on time?	443	389	87.81%

Average Collection size:		811957

Type	Count
Public	187
Academic	197
School	0
Consortium	18
Special	5

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	12
[2] 10,001-100,000	108
[3] 100,001-250,000	92
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	125
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	76
[6] over 10,000,001	3

2017 Survey Results
Product: Sierra		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	419	1		8	19	34	45	93	132	70	17	7	6.27	7
ILS Functionality	416	1	1	8	16	26	58	83	110	86	27	7	6.39	7
Print Functionality	419	3	1	2	2	10	21	41	127	142	70	8	7.30	8
Electronic Functionality	407	10	19	24	32	53	71	62	85	41	10	7	5.20	5
Company Satisfaction	417	3	10	34	44	38	68	64	88	52	16	7	5.42	6
Support Satisfaction	413	6	22	30	36	43	59	72	79	49	17	7	5.30	6
Support Improvement	409	20	8	23	29	51	92	47	74	35	30	5	5.27	5
Company Loyalty	411	24	12	23	33	39	70	52	71	52	35	7	5.36	6
Open Source Interest	409	110	67	57	34	37	42	23	19	9	11	0	2.65	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	422	81	19.19%
Considering new Interface	422	48	11.37%
System Installed on time?	422	377	89.34%

Average Collection size:		839431

Type	Count
Public	149
Academic	208
School	4
Consortium	23
Special	1

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	7
[2] 10,001-100,000	92
[3] 100,001-250,000	84
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	126
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	95
[6] over 10,000,001	2

2016 Survey Results
Product: Sierra		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	430	3	4	12	23	26	48	75	144	76	19	7	6.23	7
ILS Functionality	428	1	3	8	23	27	47	72	120	93	34	7	6.43	7
Print Functionality	427	3	1	2	10	15	25	46	107	148	70	8	7.16	8
Electronic Functionality	424	18	12	27	35	40	72	65	94	46	15	7	5.29	6
Company Satisfaction	427	7	18	17	37	40	60	79	99	55	15	7	5.54	6
Support Satisfaction	426	11	18	34	35	43	67	65	90	45	18	7	5.26	6
Support Improvement	421	24	10	28	28	71	104	51	50	32	23	5	4.92	5
Company Loyalty	424	22	20	15	23	44	65	60	80	54	41	7	5.52	6
Open Source Interest	425	113	69	63	36	39	44	24	22	10	5	0	2.59	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	433	58	13.39%
Considering new Interface	433	40	9.24%
System Installed on time?	433	393	90.76%

Average Collection size:		748349

Type	Count
Public	169
Academic	191
School	3
Consortium	28
Special	5

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	7
[2] 10,001-100,000	102
[3] 100,001-250,000	95
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	130
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	81
[6] over 10,000,001	1

2015 Survey Results
Product: Sierra		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	329	3	6	8	12	24	39	66	100	51	20	7	6.18	7
ILS Functionality	329	4	2	6	12	19	31	62	95	68	30	7	6.48	7
Print Functionality	326	2	3	2	7	13	8	34	93	112	52	8	7.17	8
Electronic Functionality	322	11	6	23	24	31	42	70	68	29	18	6	5.43	6
Company Satisfaction	325	8	10	21	28	30	50	56	63	42	17	7	5.45	6
Support Satisfaction	322	11	18	28	26	36	39	51	55	39	19	7	5.17	6
Support Improvement	316	29	10	25	31	40	91	28	29	20	13	5	4.48	5
Company Loyalty	323	19	9	18	24	38	48	41	53	38	35	7	5.40	6
Open Source Interest	322	93	49	44	29	36	28	12	16	8	7	0	2.54	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	334	43	12.87%
Considering new Interface	334	39	11.68%
System Installed on time?	334	293	87.72%

Average Collection size:		760283

Type	Count
Public	128
Academic	148
School	1
Consortium	21
Special	7

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	10
[2] 10,001-100,000	67
[3] 100,001-250,000	78
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	104
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	64
[6] over 10,000,001	0

2014 Survey Results
Product: Sierra		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	281	10	5	10	17	15	35	45	87	46	11	7	5.90	7
ILS Functionality	281	3	9	11	12	12	29	38	75	66	26	7	6.32	7
Print Functionality	281	2	4	7	13	12	13	20	59	102	49	8	6.98	8
Electronic Functionality	273	10	15	12	20	31	33	51	49	37	15	6	5.38	6
Company Satisfaction	281	18	13	11	14	21	39	41	66	46	12	7	5.48	6
Support Satisfaction	272	18	12	15	21	22	28	44	60	39	13	7	5.32	6
Support Improvement	271	30	11	10	22	40	62	26	33	23	14	5	4.66	5
Company Loyalty	274	26	6	15	16	24	34	32	41	37	43	9	5.52	6
Open Source Interest	279	93	54	39	19	24	24	10	9	2	5	0	2.11	1

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	288	31	10.76%
Considering new Interface	288	44	15.28%
System Installed on time?	288	249	86.46%

Average Collection size:		725997

Type	Count
Public	116
Academic	130
School	1
Consortium	19
Special	4

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	6
[2] 10,001-100,000	63
[3] 100,001-250,000	77
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	78
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	59
[6] over 10,000,001	0

2013 Survey Results
Product: Sierra		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	170	2	1	12	5	3	12	22	55	39	19	7	6.54	7
ILS Functionality	170	1	1	4	8	4	12	15	54	51	20	7	6.85	7
Print Functionality	170	1		2	1	3	8	17	23	73	42	8	7.55	8
Electronic Functionality	167	3	3	2	13	13	29	30	31	30	13	7	5.97	6
Company Satisfaction	170	3	6	6	10	8	12	11	59	37	18	7	6.34	7
Support Satisfaction	166	3	6	9	7	7	18	28	38	32	18	7	6.11	7
Support Improvement	165	6	6	5	8	16	47	21	18	18	20	5	5.55	5
Company Loyalty	169	12	4	3	4	4	22	16	37	31	36	7	6.36	7
Open Source Interest	165	54	28	25	14	13	17	5	2	3	4	0	2.19	2

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	173	10	5.78%
Considering new Interface	173	36	20.81%
System Installed on time?	173	160	92.49%

Average Collection size:		746241

Type	Count
Public	64
Academic	77
School	1
Consortium	13
Special	1

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	6
[2] 10,001-100,000	35
[3] 100,001-250,000	34
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	55
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	35
[6] over 10,000,001	0

2012 Survey Results
Product: Sierra		Response Distribution										Statistics
Category	Responses	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Mode	Mean	Median
ILS Satisfaction	92	1		1	1	1	13	12	26	29	8	8	6.87	7
ILS Functionality	92	1		2	1	1	6	17	25	27	12	8	6.98	7
Print Functionality	0											0	0.00
Electronic Functionality	0											0	0.00
Company Satisfaction	93		1	1	2	2	11	8	23	28	17	8	7.08	7
Support Satisfaction	90		1	2	1	3	5	17	21	20	20	7	7.04	7
Support Improvement	92	1	2	3	8	4	30	7	15	11	11	5	5.78	5
Company Loyalty	92	2		2	2	4	10	7	12	15	38	9	7.22	8
Open Source Interest	92	37	16	11	7	4	10	2	3	1	1	0	1.90	1

Category	Total	Yes	percent
Considering new ILS	96	4	4.17%
Considering new Interface	96	20	20.83%
System Installed on time?	96	78	81.25%

Average Collection size:		823674

Type	Count
Public	41
Academic	45
School	0
Consortium	3
Special	1

Size Category	Count
[1] Under 10,000	2
[2] 10,001-100,000	20
[3] 100,001-250,000	21
[4] 250,001-1,000,000	24
[5] 1,000,001-10,000,000	26
[6] over 10,000,001	0

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

2022 : gen: 6.14 company 5.77 loyalty 5.61 support 6.02

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

Library Technology Guides is a service provided by Marshall Breeding, independent consultant, author, and speaker.