Use of software for automation of academic
libraries in Sialkot
Mazhar Iqbal
Department of Library, Foundation University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan
Muhammad Kabir Khan
Information Services Department, Riphah International University, Islamabad, Pakistan, and
Arslan Sheikh
Junaid Zaidi Library, COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan
Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this study was to investigate the use of software for the automation of academic libraries in Sialkot. This study consisted of
three objectives, including recognizing the reasons to adopt the software for library automation, investigating the problems faced by librarians while
using library software and identifying the satisfaction level with the attributes of library software.
Design/methodology/approach – A quantitative research approach was used to achieve the objectives of this study. A survey was conducted to
collect data from the library information science professionals working in the academic libraries of Sialkot. The data was collected from 46 library
professionals through a structured questionnaire.
Findings – The findings showed that the economic cost of implementation, maintenance and the software providing multilingual support were the
major reasons for adoption of software for the purpose of automation. In this study, compliance with the internet, noncooperation in library
automation by university/institution, availability of training facilities, insufficient library budget, a lack of financial/economic resources, staff transfer
and a lack of consultancy and technical service were identified as major issues when using library automation software. However, the respondents
were quite satisfied with the performance of software attributes including circulation modules, easy to use cataloguing modules, reports’ modules,
software attributes of administration modules and multilingual facility.
Originality/value – This study persuades library and information science professionals to automate their libraries through the adoption of library
software.
Keywords Academic libraries, Library automation software, Integrated library software, Pakistan, ILS, Library software, Library automation
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The flow of information is increasing daily in the world, and it is a
challenge for library and information science (LIS) professionals to
manage information in such a way that it can be accessed easily
within a short time. The fundamental function of LIS professionals
is to facilitate users by fulfilling their information needs. Libraries
are considered one of the most important and core sources for
providing authentic information to students effectively and
efficiently. This is why there is a need to implement information
management systems (IMS) in libraries. As in conventional
libraries, users have to spend a lot of time searching for information,
and they have to rely mostly on the library personnel. In the
modern age of communication technologies, software are used for
the day-to-day housekeeping of the library operations, which saves
the time of users and library staff alike. The world is now an
information society where advancements in information processing
and rapid advancements in information and communication
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/2398-6247.htm
Information Discovery and Delivery
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 2398-6247]
[DOI 10.1108/IDD-08-2022-0081]
technology (ICT) have emphasized the role of IMS in all forms of
libraries, especially in university libraries (Verma, 2014). According
to Olorunlagbara and Ojo (2021), the information system is a
systematic mechanism for gathering, sorting, saving, and extracting
information to meet a variety of needs.
The knowledge revolution has generated a need for IMS
creation to store, organize and retrieve information for users
without wasting their time. The use of a computer to perform
library tasks such as acquisition, cataloging, classification,
circulation and serial control is known as library automation.
Automation is a significant ICT extension for libraries. It enables
the rapid operation of libraries, facilities, access and distribution
of content (Mairaj and El-Hadi, 2012). The use of computers in
libraries begun in the 1960s. Borgman (1997) has divided library
automation into three stages. These three stages are elaborated as
below. The term “library automation” first appeared in the
The authors acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for their valuable
comments on this manuscript. This research received no financial support.
Received 18 August 2022
Revised 7 October 2022
11 November 2022
25 November 2022
4 January 2023
5 January 2023
Accepted 21 January 2023
Automation of academic libraries
Information Discovery and Delivery
Mazhar Iqbal, Muhammad Kabir Khan and Arslan Sheikh
1960s. It was the time for higher education extension to increase
the inventory of library funds. Library practitioners realized that
library resources could not be handled easily with manual
processes, whereas automation provides very fast data
processing. The earliest library functions were computerized
library operations that included acquisition, cataloging,
circulation and serials.
During the 1960s and 1970s, more emphasis was given to
improving internal workflow. The machine readable catalog
(MARC) was created by the Library of Congress in 1966.
Sharing catalogues was a major advancement in the history of
library automation that reduced data processing time. The
Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) introduced the first
major shared catalog in 1967. Some others included “Research
Libraries Information Network” and “Western Library Network”.
Initially, the computer was only accessible to patrons at the
circulation desk. In the early 1980s, libraries were powerful enough
to run and execute library functions using an online method. The
integrated library system (ILS) enables libraries to place online
vendor orders. The ILS enhanced management and workflow.
The market for automated library systems began to develop in the
1980s, as libraries all around the world embraced library
automation. The books on how to choose library software were
released. The library software was produced by vendors, who then
sold it to libraries. The online catalogue was created on local area
networks in the early 1980s and made available online in the late
1980s. By this time, the mutual catalogue had transformed into a
union catalogue, with OCLC alone retaining information for
hundreds of millions of library-owned items. Everyone has access
to resources via internet. The Z39.50 standard allows for online
data interchange. Software for automating libraries is accessible
online via cloud computing services (Wang and Dawes, 2012).
Library automation in Pakistan
Computer use in the library began in the 1960s, although more
attention was paid to automation of Pakistani libraries in the
1990s. The use of computers in libraries of Pakistan started in
the late 1990s. The “Pakistan Scientific and Technological
Information Centre” is credited for being the first organization
in Pakistan to use a computer for the union catalog of research
publications (Haider, 1998). Because of budget issues, few
libraries in Pakistan were willing to use library technologies in
the 1990s. Mostly, libraries have bought or downloaded library
applications from suppliers. The libraries of the “Lahore
University of Management Sciences,” the “Agha Khan University
Library” and the “National Agricultural Research Center”
considered early automation in Pakistan. Mahmood (1999)
claimed that during the 1990s, the “Netherlands Library
Development Project” was involved in the implementation of
modern information technology in Pakistan. According to
Mahmood Malik (1996), international agencies including “United
Nations Educational,” “Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO),” “World Health Organization,” “United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization” and “International Atomic
Energy Agency” all played very vital roles in the history of library
automation in Pakistan. Between 2000 and 2010, the use of
computers in libraries was very widespread, with some local
applications, such as library software being commonly used in small
libraries, especially college libraries. Currently, most libraries are
using integrated open-source software (OSS) since 2010. Koha
Integrated Library Program (ILS) has gained popularity in recent
years in Pakistani libraries by providing the required specifications
and free availability (Asim, 2017).
Aim and objectives of the study
This study aims to investigate the status of library automation
in the academic libraries of Sialkot through the use of software.
The objectives of the study are to:
explore the reasons to adopt software for library automation;
investigate the problems faced by librarians while using
library software; and
identify the satisfaction level with the features of library
software.
Literature review
Kabir Khan and Sheikh (2022) investigated the use of OSS in
Islamabad’s university libraries for the development of IRs.
They discovered that libraries adopt free and OSS more
frequently than local or commercial software. The attitude of
librarians was positive, as evidenced by their views on using
open-source IR software. They also highlighted the selection of
appropriate software and materials for digitization, a lack of
collaboration from the parent organization, insufficient training
opportunities and a shortage of trained employees are some of
the main difficulties that librarians face while using opensource institutional repository software. Asim and Mairaj
(2019) surveyed the adoption and use of Koha in the province
of Punjab, Pakistan. They reported that university librarians in
Punjab encountered the problems in the automation of their
libraries, including of insufficient technical skills in the staff,
lack of knowledge of the Linux operating system, slow internet
and approval from the administration of the organizations.
Komolafe-Opadeji and Ojo (2019) discussed automation
issues confronting federal university libraries in the Southwest.
They noticed that financing, power shortages, procurement of
unstable servers, device malfunction, weak internet and
compensation of ILS annual payments because of funding
constraints were the major issues that federal university
libraries faced concerning automation. Ponelis and Adoma
(2018) investigated how OSS was distributed to university
libraries in Uganda, Africa. They collected data using a
questionnaire and observed that academic libraries in Uganda
had adopted OSS because it was the most affordable option,
met their library needs and was versatile. They revealed that
Koha ILS has been adopted by the majority of the libraries.
Compared to public university libraries, they claimed that the
majority of private sector libraries had implemented OSS. They
underlined that barriers to the deployment of OSS included
policies of the organization, a shortfall of human resources,
budgetary considerations and ICT infrastructure.
Benahal (2018) conducted a study on Koha acquisition
module’s independence in academic libraries in India. This study
was based on internal documentation. The study found that Koha
presupposes finalized titles, vendors and budget heads and does
not provide any support for finalizing titles, vendors and budget
heads. The above-mentioned author stated that procurement is a
dynamic process while Koha is partially self-reliant. They
Automation of academic libraries
Information Discovery and Delivery
Mazhar Iqbal, Muhammad Kabir Khan and Arslan Sheikh
suggested customization is required to get maximum benefits
from the module of acquisition. An academic study by Jabeen
et al. (2018) examined the opinions of librarians toward the
adoption of open-source technologies in libraries in Beijing,
China. They collected data using a blend-process methodology.
A questionnaire and interviews were administered to gather the
data. The study’s findings revealed that while some Chinese
libraries used locally created software, the majority of them used
commercial software. They stated that a lack of technical
understanding or experience was to blame for the lack of interest
in OSS adoption. They discovered that the respondents’ fear was
a result of the risk associated with using OSS.
Asim (2017) surveyed the Koha integrated library software
(ILS) adoption and use in Punjab, Pakistan. In the province of
Punjab, he noticed that 22 universities/degree-awarding
institutions (DAIs) were using Koha ILS. Naveed et al. (2021)
presented an analysis that examines the present state of the
library automation systems being used within the Lahore
libraries. They observed that 33 recognized universities and
DAI libraries of the Higher Education Commission (HEC)
used a library management system in Lahore and most librarians
were comfortable with integrated library management system
(ILMS) free-based software and with Koha OSS. The process of
implementation and data migration from LMS to Koha in
Government College University (GCU) libraries in Lahore were
described in detail by Khan et al. (2016). This study is intended to
highlight the issues that librarians encounter in Koha’s
implementation. They found that the GCU library was automated
in 1999 and LMS software was used for the first time in the GCU
library. Tower-tech software house provided the LMS. The only
problem with the LMS program was that it was non-MARC and
non-Unicode software and it did not accept the Urdu font, even
though the GCU library held over 100,000 books in Urdu. As a
result, at a conference, the library workers agreed to introduce the
Koha ILS program. They stated that “the whole project took three
months.” The library staff installed Koha on the server, shifted all
the data from the LMS and also customized Koha.
Avery (2016) investigated the implementation of opensource integrated library system (OSILS) in a special focus
institution. The aforementioned author discussed the
implementation process and transformation from a
proprietary ILS to an open-source Koha. Avery (2016)
reported that data from proprietary software was first
converted into MARC able file through Marc Editor software
and then uploaded this MARC able file into Koha. MARC
able file was uploaded through the facility of “Stage MARC
records for import.” This facility is available in Koha’s tool
module. Avery (2016) stated that, “planning, teamwork,
technical skills and patience are required for the process of
the migration of data.” Otunla (2016) explored obstacles to
the introduction of library automation in University libraries
in the state of Osun, Nigeria. He pointed out that hardware
and software problems, lack of collaboration between
university libraries, financial problems, staff problems and
attitudinal problems are major challenges to effective
automation in Nigeria’s university libraries. Kumar and
Jayapradeep (2015) described the acceptability of Koha
software over LibSys in India. They observed that 96% of
respondents were aware of the OSILS and 85% backed the
adoption of OSILS in India. The study showed that 16.82%
of respondents expressed a lack of technological expertise,
which is a big obstacle for OSILS to follow.
Madhusudhan and Singh (2016) assessed the collection of
proprietary library automation software. The above-mentioned
authors contrasted four software sets, including Koha, LibSys,
NewGenLib and Virtua, on a checklist. They evaluated
different features of OSS and commercial ILMS and found that
Virtua had the highest score of 218, whereas Koha scored 204
and NewGenLib had the lowest score of 163. They discovered
that Virtua, NewGenLib and LibSys need to release new
versions frequently, like Koha. They suggested that Koha needs
to be more compatible with different languages for its usability.
Das and Chatterjee (2015) described that some of the intrinsic
difficulties related to library automation are a high preliminary
asset; librarians need to undertake concentrated training,
reflective adaptation and obligation for systematic software
modernizes. Librarians planning library automation development
wanted to anticipate complications during the development stage
to ensure that problems are addressed at the appropriate time and
for upcoming maintenance. Ukachi et al. (2014) conducted a study
on library automation and the use of OSS to maximize library
effectiveness in India. They stated that library automation helped
library staff and users in terms of reducing job stress on the staff
while providing remote access and users could get information at
the right time. Ukachi et al. (2014) said that OSS enhances the
effectiveness of library use among users. Library staff became able
enough to modify the software according to local needs and which
they adopted without paying any cost. The study found that OSS
played a vital role in the effectiveness of library use. Finally, they
suggested that software support should be available from software
developers. Ahammad (2014) discussed the introduction of Koha
ILS at the Independent University of Bangladesh (IUB). A realistic
acquaintance with Koha’s introduction at the IUB served as the
foundation for this study. He discovered that Koha has all the
features that can meet the automation requirements of any library.
In addition, Ahammad (2014) discovered that Koha had
advantages, particularly for libraries in developing nations. This is
because libraries in developing nations typically have extremely
limited funding and are unable to invest in ILS library software.
Hudron Kari and Emmanuel Baro (2014) investigated the use
and problems of library applications in Namibian University
libraries. They discovered difficulties faced during the introduction
of library applications, such as software adoption confusion,
insufficient professionals, erratic power, weak ICT facilities, a lack
of funding, workers’ attitudes and inadequate preparation. Kumar
and Jasimudeen (2012) investigated the adoption of the Koha
software and users’ opinions on it in the context of Indian libraries
are briefly described in this paper, which also assesses the level of
satisfaction among Indian library professionals with Koha. This
study revealed that the software is widely used in India’s southern
states and that the country has an increasing number of Koha
users. Shafi-Ullah and Qutab (2012) performed research in
Pakistan’s Legislative Assembly Libraries to decide on a process of
data conversion from the Library Automation Management
Program to Koha. According to the study’s findings, key
challenges in the adoption of OSS include a shortage of funding,
untrained staff, a lack of interest from technical associations/groups
and librarians’ reluctant actions to incorporate new technologies.
Moreover, they found that the libraries were using OSS ILS
mainly because of their affordability and economical cost.
Automation of academic libraries
Information Discovery and Delivery
Mazhar Iqbal, Muhammad Kabir Khan and Arslan Sheikh
Types of library software
Roy and Kumar (2017) compared the modules of Koha and
NewGenLib software. They disclosed that the cataloguing
module of Koha has the facility of matching rules during the
import of data through the Z39.50 protocol, whereas
NewGenLib does not have this facility. They further reported
that NewGenLib allows the definition of categories of different
types of patrons. Dad and Khan (2012) divided library
automation software into three categories: in-house developed,
turnkey system and vendor-based system. The library management
authority hires system analysts and programmers from a reputable
computer firm for the development of an automation system. After
a thorough conversation with the library and the computer
programmer and understanding each other’s specifications, the
system analyst, with the aid of the librarian and programmer, is
designing an automation system for the library. This method is
considered an in-house built system. Turnkey is a system in which
commercial companies provide a full library automation system,
such as circulation, procurement, bibliography scan and other
library functions. The vendor-based framework is another type of
library automation tool. This system is provided by bookshops and
employees with online services. Most libraries use OSS, which has
gained popularity in recent years.
Rafiq and Ameen (2009) stated that, FOSS is computer
software whose source code is available under a license that
permits users to use, change and improve the software and to
redistribute it in modified or unmodified form.
Although open-source programming is free, a designer or
merchant may charge for administrations such as custom
programming, installation, setup and specialized support. The
actual beginning of FOSS is hard to define, but it is at least
20 years old (Cervone, 2003). Developers who may have the
source code of a computer program may improve it by inserting
elements or modifying sections that do not function properly in
general. According to Kumar and Jayapradeep (2015), “a range
of FOSS is evolving for library automation around the world.”
Research problem
In today’s age, automation is extremely important in any kind
of library. All over the world, libraries use various kinds of
software to automate their operations. This research outlines
the present state of library automation in the academic libraries
of the Sialkot district. The study looks into the issues that
librarians face while selecting and implementing library
software applications. A review of the literature reveals that a
few studies have been conducted to investigate the use of library
automation software in academic libraries in Pakistan.
However, no study has been conducted, particularly in the
Sialkot district. Therefore, it was considered that there is a need
to explore this area to fill a void in the literature, and this
research is just an effort in this regard. The study tends to
answer the below-mentioned research questions:
RQ1.
RQ2.
What are the reasons to adopt the software for library
automation in Pakistan?
Which kinds of problems are faced by librarians while
using library software?
RQ3.
To what extent are librarians satisfied with the features
of library software?
Methods and procedures
The population is considered the combined group of
individuals who are under study. A well-known researcher,
Powell (2004), explained the term population as “any set
of individuals or items that own at least one mutual
characteristic.” The current study’s target demographic was
the librarians of district Sialkot and also the library staff who
worked in colleges and institutions accredited by the HEC. To
create a list of respondents, the researcher called the librarians
of 29 colleges and 6 HEC-recognized universities in the Sialkot
district after gathering their phone numbers. In the Sialkot area,
the researcher discovered 52 librarians employed by colleges
and HEC-recognized universities. In this study, a specific
subset of the population was chosen for data collection using
the purposive sampling technique. With the goals of this study
in mind, a questionnaire was created. In light of the literature
study, a structured questionnaire was created (see Appendix).
A scale of 1–5 was used in this study, with 1 denoting strong
disagreement, 2 disagreement, 3 neutral, 4 agreement and 5
strong agreements. Pilot testing was done on 15 respondents of
the study. During the pilot test, it was intended to gain
additional clarity, assess respondents’ comprehension and time
how long it took to complete the questionnaire. After the pilot
study, the questionnaire’s questions were expanded upon and
some sentences were changed. The questionnaire was created
in Google Docs after the last round of editing. The study’s
respondents received this link through several emails,
WhatsApp and Facebook groups as well. There were 46
individuals who responded to the survey. After collecting the
necessary data, each response was given a number, which was
then recorded on an Excel sheet that was downloaded from
Google Docs. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) version 22 was used to analyze the data set. The errors
that occurred during data entry into SPSS were fixed. Using
SPSS software, descriptive statistics, frequency and percentage
counts, means, standard deviations and variance were used to
examine the data.
Findings and discussions
In this section, the results and discussion of the distributed
instrument are presented. The mean and standard deviation
score are discussed for each element.
Name of software used
Figure 1 shows the frequency counts of librarians’ responses
regarding the name of software being used in their respective
libraries. The results indicate that the majority of the librarians,
that is, 38 (82.6%), answered that their libraries are using
LIMS software for automation and 8 (17.4)% librarians
answered that their libraries are using Koha software.
Reasons for adoption of library software
Table 1 shows the mean scores of statements regarding reasons
for adoption of library software. The results conclude that three
statements received a mean score of more than 4.00 and nine
Automation of academic libraries
Information Discovery and Delivery
Mazhar Iqbal, Muhammad Kabir Khan and Arslan Sheikh
Figure 1 Name of software used
17.4%
Koha
82.6%
LIMS
statements received a mean score of more than 3.00. These
results refer that the majority of respondents reported that they
adopted library software for their libraries because of the
availability of necessary functionality (mean = 4.04, SD = 0.55),
free availability of software (mean = 4.02, SD = 0.64) and the
popularity of the software among the profession’s community
(mean = 4.00, SD = 0.55). The findings resulted that the
economic cost of implementation and maintenance (mean =
3.97, SD = 0.97) and the software providing multilingual support
(mean = 3.97, SD = 0.49) were the major reasons for adopting
the software for automation.
Problems faced by libraries while implementing/using
library software
Table 2 displays the mean score of statements regarding the
problem faced by libraries while implementing and using
library software. The results demonstrate that all 15 statements
got a mean score of more than 3.00. This indicates that a
majority of the respondents agreed to the following statements.
These results show that compliance with the internet (mean =
3.34, SD = 0.92), university/institution noncooperation in
library automation (mean = 3.28, SD = 1.02), availability of
training facilities (mean = 3.28, SD = 0.98) and insufficient
library budget (mean = 3.23, SD = 1.03) were the major issues
when using library software automation. The results summed
up that a high number of respondents responded that their
libraries faced problems with lack of funds or economic
resources (mean = 3.23, SD = 0.97), staff transfer (mean =
3.21, SD = 1.03) and lack of consultancy and technical service
(mean = 3.19, SD = 1.04) in the use of library automation
software.
Satisfaction level with the features of library software
Table 3 demonstrates the mean scores of the statements
regarding the satisfaction level with the features of library
software. The results reveal that 12 statements got a mean score
of 4.00 or more than 4.00, whereas 11 statements got a mean
score of more than 3.00. It shows that a majority of the
respondents agreed to the given options. These findings show
that respondents were quite satisfied with the performance of
software attributes including circulation modules (mean =
4.15, SD = 0.66), easy to use (mean = 4.10, SD = 0.79),
cataloging modules (mean = 4.10, SD = 0.73) and reports
modules (mean = 4.10, SD = 0.64). The results disclosed that a
high number of respondents were satisfied with the software
attributes of administration modules (mean = 4.10, SD = 0.64)
and multilingual facilities (mean = 4.08, SD = 0.69). Overall,
the high mean score of the section is an indication that
respondents were satisfied with the attributes of the software.
One-way analysis of variance computed on reasons for
software adoption, problems faced and satisfaction level
by respondents
The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to
determine whether there is any statistically significant
difference between the means of two or more independent
groups. A comparison has been made between the designations
and working experience of the respondents. The results of the
ANOVA test are presented in Tables 4 and 5.
Designations
One-way ANOVA was used to analyze any differences in
respondents’ views based on their designations. The results
given in Table 4 reveal a significant disparity in respondents’
views based on their designations regarding the causes of
software adoption (p = 0.02) and issues encountered when
using software (p = 0.00). This indicates a significant difference
with significance level < 0.05. Only one statement of
satisfaction with software features (p = 0.54) indicates that
there is no significant difference with significance level > 0.05.
Work experience
One-way ANOVA was used to explore the large disparity in
respondents’ views based on their work experience. The results
given in Table 5 shows that there was no substantial difference
Table 1 Reasons for adoption of library software (N = 46)
Statements
Availability of required features
Free availability of software
The popularity of the software among the profession community
Economical cost of implementation and maintenance
The software provides multilingual support
Provision of discovery features
Availability of web OPAC
Easy installation process
Hosting and support services for software is easily available
Software provides a search facility for copy cataloging through Z39.50
The software provides MARC21 standard for cataloging
Availability of Library 2.0 features
Notes: Scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree
Mean
SD
4.04
4.02
4.00
3.97
3.97
3.93
3.93
3.91
3.86
3.86
3.82
3.80
0.55
0.64
0.55
0.49
0.53
0.53
0.61
0.75
0.61
0.68
0.73
0.77
Automation of academic libraries
Information Discovery and Delivery
Mazhar Iqbal, Muhammad Kabir Khan and Arslan Sheikh
Table 2 Problems faced by the library while implementing/using library
software (N = 46)
Statements
Compliance with internet
Noncooperation in library automation by
university/institution
Availability of training facilities
Inadequate library budget
Lack of consultancy and technical service
Lack of IT infrastructure facilities
(hardware/software)
Lack of competent and willing library staff
Lack of library automation policy
Lack of customization facility
No cooperation of superordinate with
Subordinates
Lack of admin right by IT department
Lack of upgradation facility
Mean
SD
3.34
0.92
3.28
3.28
3.23
3.19
1.02
0.98
1.03
1.04
3.17
3.15
3.15
3.13
0.99
1.03
1.07
1.08
3.13
3.10
3.08
1.00
1.03
1.05
Notes: Scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree;
5 = strongly agree
in respondents’ views based on their work experience on all
inferences. The results given in Table 5 reveal that no
significant disparity in respondents’ views based on experience
regarding the causes of software adoption (p = 0.66), problem
face while using software (p = 0.26) and satisfaction with
software features (p = 0.90). This indicates that no significant
difference according to work experience exist in respondents
with significance level > 0.05.
Discussion
Major findings of the study related to each of the research
objectives and research questions are presented in this section.
RQ1. What are the reasons to adopt the software for
library automation in Pakistan?
The present study found that academic libraries in Sialkot
district adopted library software because of the availability of
required features, free availability of software and the
popularity of the software among the profession’s community.
The findings showed that the economic cost of implementation
and maintenance and the software providing multilingual
support were the major reasons for adopting the software for
automation. A previous study also confirmed that library
automation and adoption of library software plays a vital role in
the effectiveness of library use (Ukachi et al., 2014). These
findings also relate with the previous study of Naveed et al.
(2021) that indicated that because of the availability of
necessary library software modules and the potential for
modification, the majority of libraries were satisfied with LIMS
free-based software and KOHA OSS. Another previous study
also confirmed that due of its free availability, MARC21
cataloguing standards support and online public access
catalogue (OPAC) functionality, Koha was accepted by
librarians (Asim and Mairaj, 2019).
RQ2. Which kinds of problems are faced by librarians
while using library software?
Compliance with the internet, noncooperation in library
automation by university/institution, availability of training
Table 3 Satisfaction level with the features of library software (N = 46)
Statements
Circulation modules
Easy to use
Cataloguing modules
Reports modules
Administration modules
Multilingual facility
Patron modules (membership)
Web OPAC
Online help
Maintenance and support
Easy backup facility
Serials modules
Price-wise affordability
Acquisition modules
Customization
Easy access from anywhere through the internet
Easy data transfer to the latest version
Collection may be transferred from one library to another library easily through software
Can manage more than one library at one time
Easy installation
ILL facility
New arrivals display facility
Integrated with social media
Notes: Scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree
Mean
SD
4.15
4.10
4.10
4.10
4.10
4.08
4.08
4.06
4.04
4.02
4.02
4.00
3.97
3.97
3.97
3.97
3.97
3.97
3.95
3.93
3.91
3.91
3.91
0.66
0.79
0.73
0.64
0.64
0.69
0.69
0.64
0.69
0.68
0.57
0.78
0.9
0.82
0.68
0.57
0.57
0.61
0.55
0.92
0.62
0.69
0.69
Automation of academic libraries
Information Discovery and Delivery
Mazhar Iqbal, Muhammad Kabir Khan and Arslan Sheikh
Table 4 One-way ANOVA based on designations (N = 46)
Status of library software
Reasons for software adoption
Problems faced while using software
Satisfaction with software features
Dy. Chief
Librarian
M
SD
4.58
2.06
4.39
Sr. Librarian
M
SD
0.53
0.83
0.52
4.61
2.06
4.33
Assist.
Librarian
M
SD
Librarian
M
SD
0.52
0.83
0.52
3.83
3.48
3.95
0.49
0.84
0.56
3.99
2.60
4.11
0.21
0.81
0.51
F
Sig
3.93
5.17
0.72
0.02
0.00
0.54
Notes: Scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree
Table 5 One-way ANOVA based on working experience (N = 46)
1–5
Status of library software
Reasons for software adoption
Problems faced while using software
Satisfaction with software features
6–10
11–15
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
F
Sig
3.85
3.39
4.01
0.46
0.86
0.56
3.99
3.14
3.99
0.56
1.01
0.60
3.97
2.67
4.10
0.36
0.95
0.29
0.42
1.36
0.09
0.66
0.26
0.90
Notes: Scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree
facilities, insufficient library budget, lack of financial/economic
resources, staff transfer and lack of consultancy and technical
service were identified as major issues when using library
software automation in this study. These findings are consistent
with the findings of Hudron Kari and Emmanuel Baro (2014)
who also reported the challenges faced during the introduction
of library applications, such as confusion in software adoption,
insufficient professionals, erratic power, and weak ICT
facilities, a lack of funding, workers’ attitudes and inadequate
preparation. The previous survey also showed that the key
challenges that university libraries confront when it comes to
automation or funding are power shortages, the purchase of
unstable servers, device failure, poor internet and
compensation of ILS annual payments owing to funding limits
(Komolafe-Opadeji and Ojo, 2019). Kumar and Jasimudeen
(2012) confirmed that the software is widely used in India’s
southern states and that the country has an increasing number
of Koha users. These findings also correlate with the findings of
Shafi-Ullah and Qutab (2012) who reported the key challenges
in the adoption of OSS including a shortage of funding,
untrained staff, a lack of interest from technical associations/
groups and librarians’ reluctant actions to incorporate new
technologies.
RQ3. To what extent are librarians satisfied with the
features of library software?
The findings showed that respondents were quite satisfied with
the performance of software attributes. These included
circulation modules, easy to use, cataloging modules, reporting
modules, software attributes of administration modules and
multilingual facilities. A previous study also confirmed that
Koha has all the functions and could satisfy the automation
needs in any library (Ahammad, 2014). Another previous study
also confirmed that Koha Integrated Library software (ILS) has
gained popularity in recent years in Pakistani libraries by
providing the required specifications and free availability
(Asim, 2017). These findings are consistent with the findings of
Roy and Kumar (2017) who reported about the modules of
Koha software. They disclosed the feature of cataloging
module of Koha has the facility of matching rules during import
of data through the Z39.50 protocol.
Conclusions and recommendations
This study concludes that the status of library automation in
academic libraries in the Sialkot district is quite satisfactory.
The librarians are using library software to run the daily
operations in their respective libraries. The librarians are using
library automation software for various reasons, including the
free availability of the software, the popularity of the software
among the professional’s community and the availability of the
required features, multilingual support. However, on the other
hand, LIS professionals also encounter some roadblocks in the
adoption of library automation software such as internet
compliance, university/institution noncooperation in library
automation, availability of training facilities, insufficient library
budgets, lack of financial/economic resources, staff transfer and
a lack of consultancy and technical service. Nevertheless, the
respondents were quite satisfied with the performance of
different software attributes including circulation modules,
easy to use, cataloguing modules, reporting modules, software
attributes for administration modules and multilingual facility.
This study recommends that libraries with insufficient library
budgets should adopt open-source library software to better
run their daily library operations. However, before purchasing
any library automation system, librarians must ensure that the
software has some required features, including reliable and
secure; and has a user-friendly interface/OPAC availability;
customization facility; advanced searching option; web-based
features; supports library standards such as MARC 21, Uni
MARC and RDA; and can be upgraded with new versions.
This study disclosed that some university libraries in Sialkot do
Automation of academic libraries
Information Discovery and Delivery
Mazhar Iqbal, Muhammad Kabir Khan and Arslan Sheikh
not have web OPACs. Therefore, it is also recommended that
librarians should work on making their web OPACs available to
the users so that users can check the availability and status of
required reading materials online. Most of the libraries were
not using the acquisition and serials modules. The librarians
should make use of all modules of library software in library
operations. Librarians who are facing difficulty in automation
of their libraries need to convince their administration
regarding the use and benefits of software in libraries. Then, to
increase the skills, librarians need to cooperate among their
peers and should exchange their skills with colleagues having
fewer skills in software handling.
Limitations of the study and future research
This study is geographically limited to Sialkot, a city located in
Pakistan. Therefore, the results of this study cannot be
generalized to LIS professionals working in other Pakistani
libraries. However, the study persuades LIS professionals to
conduct such studies in their respective libraries. Moreover,
future research can be conducted to gain feedback from the
users on the use of software for the automation of libraries in
Pakistan.
References
Ahammad, N. (2014), “Implementing the Koha integrated
library system at the Independent University, Bangladesh: a
practical experience”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 32 No. 5,
pp. 642-658, doi: 10.1108/EL-04-2012-0036.
Asim, M. (2017), “Librarians perceptions about adoption and
uses of Koha (ILS) in Punjab”, MPhil Thesis, Minhaj
University.
Asim, M. and Mairaj, M.I. (2019), “Librarians’ perceptions
about adoption and uses of the Koha integrated library
software in Punjab, Pakistan”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 37
No. 4, pp. 624-635, doi: 10.1108/EL-11-2018-0224.
Avery, J.M. (2016), “Implementing an open-source integrated
library system (ILS) in a special focus institution”, Digital
Library Perspectives, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 287-298, doi:
10.1108/DLP-02-2016-0003.
Benahal, A.R. (2018), “Self-reliance of the Koha acquisition
module for managing procurement of printed books: an
academic library perspective”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 36
No. 2, pp. 338-349, doi: 10.1108/EL-12-2016-0263.
Borgman, C.L. (1997), “From acting locally to thinking
globally: a brief history of library automation”, The Library
Quarterly, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 215-249, doi: 10.1086/629950.
Cervone, F. (2003), “Open source software: what can it do for
your library?”, Electronic Library, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 526-527.
Dad, H. and Khan, S.N. (2012), A Guide to Library and
Information Science: Questions and Answers, Multiline
Publisher, Lahore.
Das, D. and Chatterjee, P. (2015), “Library automation: an
overview”, International Journal of Research in Library Science,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-7.
Haider, S.J. (1998), “Library automation in Pakistan”,
International Information & Library Review, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 51-69, doi: 10.1080/10572317.1998.10762465.
Hudron Kari, K. and Emmanuel Baro, E. (2014), “The use of
library software in Nigerian university libraries and challenges”,
Library Hi Tech News, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 15-20, doi: 10.1108/
LHTN-09-2013-0053.
Jabeen, M., Qinjian, Y., Jabeen, M. and Yihan, Z. (2018),
“Library professional’s opinion about open-source software
adoption: status, problems and measures used in libraries of
Beijing, China”, Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication,
Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 180-192, doi: 10.1108/GKMC-03-20170022.
Kabir Khan, M. and Sheikh, A. (2022), “Open source software
adoption for development of institutional repositories in
university libraries of Islamabad”, Information Discovery and
Delivery, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 47-55, doi: 10.1108/IDD-102021-0113.
Khan, M.T., Zahid, A. and Rafiq, M. (2016), “Journey from
library management system (LMS) to KOHA by Government
College University libraries, Lahore”, Pakistan Journal of
Information Management and Libraries (PJIM&L), Vol. 17,
pp. 184-190.
Komolafe-Opadeji, H. and Ojo, R.A. (2019), “A survey study
on the adoption and implementation of automation projects
in federal university libraries in the south-west of Nigeria”,
International Information & Library Review, Vol. 51 No. 2,
pp. 194-201, doi: 10.1080/10572317.2019.1600784.
Kumar, V. and Jasimudeen, S. (2012), “Adoption and user
perceptions of Koha library management system in India”,
Annals of Library and Information Studies, Vol. 59 No. 4,
pp. 223-230.
Kumar, T.G. and Jayapradeep, M. (2015), “Perceptions of LIS
professionals on open-source integrated library system and
adoptability of Koha over LibSys in India”, International
Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology, Vol. 5
No. 2, pp. 100-105.
Madhusudhan, M. and Singh, V. (2016), “Integrated library
management systems: comparative analysis of Koha, Libsys,
NewGenLib, and Virtua”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 34
No. 2, pp. 223-249, doi: 10.1108/EL-08-2014-0127.
Mahmood, K. (1999), “The development of computerized
library services in Pakistan: a review of the literature”,
Asian Libraries, Vol. 8 No. 9, pp. 307-328, doi: 10.1108/
10176749910293803.
Mahmood Malik, K. (1996), “The status of library automation
in Pakistan”, Library Review, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 36-42, doi:
10.1108/00242539610125668.
Mairaj, M.I. and El-Hadi, W.M. (2012), “Applications of
information and communication technologies in libraries
in Pakistan”, Journal of the Medical Library Association:
JMLA, Vol. 100 No. 3, pp. 218-222, doi: 10.3163/15365050.100.3.013.
Naveed, M., Siddique, N. and Adil, H.M. (2021), Measuring
the Status of Library Management Systems: A Case of Higher
Education Institutions in Lahore, Library Philosophy and
Practice, pp. 1-24.
Olorunlagbara, B.V. and Ojo, C. (2021), “The use and
implementation of open-source integrated library software in
enhancing library services in the north central tertiary
institutions”, International Academic Journal of Social Sciences,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Automation of academic libraries
Information Discovery and Delivery
Mazhar Iqbal, Muhammad Kabir Khan and Arslan Sheikh
Otunla, A.O. (2016), “Current status of automation in academic
libraries in Osun state, Nigeria”, Journal of Applied Information
Science and Technology, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 29-39.
Ponelis, S.R. and Adoma, P. (2018), “Diffusion of open-source
integrated library systems in academic libraries in Africa: the
case of Uganda”, Library Management, Vol. 39 Nos 6/7,
pp. 430-448, doi: 10.1108/LM-05-2017-0052.
Powell, D.J. (2004), Clinical Supervision in Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Counseling: Principles, Models, Methods, John Wiley & Sons.
Rafiq, M. and Ameen, K. (2009), “Issues and lessons learned
in open-source software adoption in Pakistani libraries”, The
Electronic Library, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 601-610, doi: 10.1108/
02640470910979561.
Roy, M.B. and Kumar, N. (2017), “Open-source integrated
library management systems: comparative analysis of Koha
and NewGenLib”, International Journal of Information
Movement, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 30-47.
Shafi-Ullah, F. and Qutab, S. (2012), “From LAMP to Koha:
case study of the Pakistan legislative assembly libraries”,
Program, Vol. 46 No.1, pp. 43-55.
Ukachi, N.B., Nwachukwu, V.N. and Onuoha, U.D. (2014),
“Library automation and use of open source software to
maximize
library
effectivenss”,
Library
Progress
(International), Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 97-111.
Verma, M.K. (2014), “Information communication technology
(ICT) challenges for library professional: a professional
approach”, Conference: Libraries Towards Digital Paradigm,
pp. 354-363.
Wang, Y. and Dawes, T.A. (2012), “The next generation
integrated library system: a promise fulfilled?”, Information
Technology and Libraries, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 76-84, doi:
10.6017/ital.v31i3.1914.
Further reading
Egunjobi, R.A. and Awoyemi, R.A. (2012), “Library automation
with Koha”, Library Hi Tech News, 29(3), 12–15, Evergreen
ILS. 2019. Evergreen community, available at: https://
evergreen-ils.org/about-us/
Shafi-Ullah, F. and Qutab, S. (2012), “From LAMP to
Koha: case study of the Pakistan legislative assembly
libraries”, Program, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 43-55, doi:
10.1108/00330331211204557.
Automation of academic libraries
Information Discovery and Delivery
Mazhar Iqbal, Muhammad Kabir Khan and Arslan Sheikh
Appendix
Section A
Demographic Information
1. Name of the University/Institute: ___________________________________________
2. Designation:
3.
܆Chief Librarian ܆Deputy Chief Librarian ܆Deputy Librarian
܆Senior Librarian ܆Librarian ܆Assistant Librarian ܆Other__________
Type of University / College: ܆Public ܆Private
4. Gender:
܆
Male
܆
5. Age in years:
܆
20-25
܆26-30
Female
܆
31-35
܆Over 40
6. Professional qualification:
܆MLIS
܆M Phil ܆Ph.D.
7. Professional work experience in years:
܆1-5 ܆6-10
܆11-15
܆Other____________
܆16-20
܆Over 20
Section B
Q1- What is the name of library software being used in your library?
܆Koha ILS
܆LAMP
܆Virtua
܆WINSIS
܆LIMS
܆Any Other__________
Q2- In your opinion what were the reasons of adoption of library software?
Reasons
Availability of required features
Free availability of software
Easy installation process
Economical cost of implementation
and maintenance
Hosting and support services for
software is easily available
Provision of discovery features
Popularity of the software among
profession’s community
Software provides search facility for
copy cataloguing through Z39.50
Software provides multilingual support
Software provides MARC21 standard
for cataloguing
Availability of Library 2.0 features
Availability of web OPAC
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Undecided
Agree
Strongly
Agree
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
(continued)
Automation of academic libraries
Information Discovery and Delivery
Mazhar Iqbal, Muhammad Kabir Khan and Arslan Sheikh
Q3- Which kind of problems faced by your library using library software?
Strongly
Disagree Undecided
Disagree
Non-cooperation in library automation by
܆
܆
܆
University / Institution
Lack of consultancy and technical service
܆
܆
܆
Problems
܆
Strongly
Agree
܆
܆
܆
Agree
Lack of competent and willing library
staff
Availability of training facilities
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
Inadequate library budget
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
Lack of customization facility
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
Lack of up gradation facility
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
Lack of IT infrastructure facilities
(Hardware /Software)
Lack of admin right by IT department
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
Lack of admin right for software-bysoftware house / company
Lack of library automation policy
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
(continued)
Automation of academic libraries
Information Discovery and Delivery
Mazhar Iqbal, Muhammad Kabir Khan and Arslan Sheikh
Customization
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
Easy data transfer to latest version
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
Can manage more than one library at
one time
Collection may be transferred from one
library to another library easily through
software
ILL facility
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
New arrivals display facility
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
Integrated with social media
܆
܆
܆
܆
܆
Easily accessible from
through internet
Easy backup facility
anywhere
About the authors
Mazhar Iqbal is an Assistant Librarian at the Foundation
University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Muhammad Kabir Khan is a Deputy Librarian at the
Riphah International University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Arslan Sheikh works in the Junaid Zaidi Library at
COMSATS University Islamabad, Pakistan. Currently, he is a
doctoral student in the Institute for Library and Information
Science, at the Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany.
Arslan is a dynamic researcher, with several national and
international research publications to his credit. Moreover, he
serves as a reviewer for many highly ranked international
research journals. Arslan also has been a visiting faculty
member at the Department of Information Management,
University of Sargodha. He is the recipient of many
appreciation and research awards, including the Research
Productivity Award, which he has received on a consistent
basis since 2014 from COMSATS University Islamabad. His
research interests include open-access publishing, open
science, social media networking, systematic literature reviews
and research data management. Arslan Sheikh is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at:
arslan_sheikh@comsats.edu.pk
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
View publication stats