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