Content uploaded by Khalid Mahmood
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Khalid Mahmood
Content may be subject to copyright.
Integrated Library Software: A Survey of Lahore
Farzana Shafique and Khalid Mahmood
6LIBRARY HITECH NEWS Number 6 2008, pp. 6-13, #Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 0741-9058, DOI 10.1108/07419050810912805
Background to the study
Library automation was started in the
1960s in America. Since then the trend
of library automation has been
spreading all over the world. In
Pakistan, libraries started introducing
automation in the 1980s. Now-a-days,
the number of automated libraries is
continuously increasing in number.
As computer-based systems have
become more pervasive in all aspects of
library and information work, the term
library automation has become an
umbrella term for many kinds of
applications that are used within the
library. Various library software is being
developed for automation. When we
talk about the library software, we mean
the software needed for library house
keeping routines and information
retrieval services. It is also termed the
‘‘integrated library system’’ or
‘‘integrated library automation system’’.
According to Prytherch (2005),
automated systems are used in a wide
variety of tasks and contexts from
circulation control, acquisitions,
cataloging to the provision of web
services and electronic databases.
Automation is actually a combination of
hardware and software. Both are
necessary for the automating system. In
the field of libraries, software becomes
more important than hardware. A
review of the literature reveals the
criteria for library software evaluation
mentioned by different authors.
According to them the most important
rule in software selection is to know
your application and buy for your
application. General issues that can be
considered with any type of software
are: the capability to integrate multiple
modules; the presence of all needed
modules and essential features and
strengths of each module; overall
software capabilities (e.g. for multi-user
access, internet access, networking and
expandability); compliance with the
latest bibliographic standards (i.e. US
MARC and US MARC/Micro-LIF) and
the information retrieval standard
Z39.50 and some other issues such as
installation, output etc.; functionality
(workflows between functional
processes); capability for system
expansion and upgrading; its cost,
maintenance, training, documentation,
supplier’s past performance, credibility
and overall suitability of the system;
flexible data structure, simple to learn
and use, powerful data management,
rapid and powerful searches, flexible
report generation, importation of data
from any source and reliable data
security (Mandelbaum, 1992; Cohn and
Kelsey, 1997; Maghabghab, 1997;
Waller, 2003; Shafique, 2004;
Indri
uunas, 2006; Shafique and
Mahmood, 2007).
While discussing the automation and
related problems in Pakistan, Haider
(1998) has pointed out that in Pakistan
the selection of software/hardware is not
made in terms of suitability,
compatibility, maintenance and cost. He
has also discovered that proper
awareness of currently available
software is rarely available to Pakistani
libraries. Mahmood (1996) has
mentioned that hundreds of library
packages have been developed and run
successfully in advanced countries and
there are many directories and other
tools available that help librarians to
select suitable software for their libraries
but the scene in Pakistan is not
encouraging. Riaz (1993) has pointed
out many problems in library
automation in Pakistan, i.e. computer
illiteracy, improper planning, library
software and retrospective conversion,
standardization and quality control,
bureaucratic set up and many other
problems. But while emphasizing the
library software problem, she has
pointed out that if we can manage to
overcome the problems of computer
illiteracy and the lack of planning, next
comes the problem of library software,
its selection, availability and cost (31-
32). Mahmood (1995) also mentioned
that Pakistani libraries were being
automated individually without any
exchange of experience. As a result, a
variety of software was found.
Developed by inmagic, inc.
(INMAGIC), a foreign library software
was used in some agricultural libraries
of Pakistan. A large number of libraries
were working on CDS/ISIS, developed
by UNESCO and available free of cost.
While few libraries were using Library
Automation and Management Program
(LAMP), a locally developed library
software, designed for Pakistani
libraries by The Netherlands Library
Development Project in collaboration
with the Pakistan Library Association
(PLA). Maqsood (1993) surveyed 100
libraries of the Federal Area (Islamabad/
Rawalpindi), out of which 95 libraries
responded. As a result he mentioned the
following software, which was being
used in these libraries, i.e. CDS/ISIS;
INMAGIC; dBASE III plus 8; LOTUS,
123; FOX-BASE and some libraries
were using in-house software.
According to Haider (1998) the
following software was being used by
the libraries of Lahore, i.e. CDS/ISIS,
INMAGIC, Fox Pro, LAMP,
KITABDAR and PAK Library
Software. Mahmood (1997, 1998) has
pointed out more than 30 plus-points of
Micro CDS/ISIS, by calling it the best
library software for developing
countries. He also conducted a survey of
libraries in Pakistan using CDS/ISIS and
suggested that such surveys should be
conducted periodically to know the
status of software use and the problems
being faced by its users. Farooq (1997)
has discussed that in spite of some its
defects, limitations and deficiencies,
LAMP is the best software for libraries
in Pakistan. He has also pointed out the
need for standard library software in
Pakistan. Mustafa (2000) in his master’s
thesis on ‘‘Comparative study of LAMP
& INMAGIC software’’, has discussed
various aspects of these two programs,
such as their present position, nature,
utility, techniques and characteristics.
He has also recommended the use of
homemade software (i.e. LAMP) after
necessary revisions and modification.
Riaz (1990) has described the
automation experience of Lahore
University of Management Sciences.
Originally the library made use of a
locally available database management
system (DBASE III Plus), but later
opted in favor of INMAGIC software.
According to Ramazan (2002) 170 (70
per cent) automated libraries of Pakistan
had proper library software, while 30
per cent had no library software. Fifty-
nine (24 per cent) respondents were
using in-house developed software, 54
(22 per cent) were using donated
software and only 57 (23 per cent)
respondents were using purchased
library software. Fifty respondents were
using LAMP, 13 had CDS/ISIS, 13 had
CDS/ISIS windows (WinISIS) version
(WINISIS), nine had Library
Information Management System
(LIMS), 17 had INMAGIC and only
five respondents had off-the-shelf
imported library software. According to
the Pakistan Library Automation Group
(2005), LIMS is being used in more than
50 libraries, of every type, i.e. academic,
special, and public libraries not only in
Pakistan but also in the Middle East. It
has been designed, developed,
implemented and fully tested by the
group and is available free of charge
along with its training and support
through messenger, email, phone or
visits to libraries. The Group has
claimed that web OPAC for LIMS
(www.paklag.org/nulhr) has been tested
and will be distributed among the users
of LIMS free of cost. Idrees (1995)
surveyed the status of library
automation at Lahore and pointed out
many library software problems
regarding their use, management and
availability. He has emphasized that the
objectives of automation may be
achieved only with the use of
appropriate software. For this purpose
many countries have developed their
software packages according to their
needs at national level. Bearing in mind
the situation in Pakistan, he has discussed
that no pure library software is available
in the market to fulfill all library needs
and due to the trend of in-house software
development; a variety of software is
found here. According to him, 13/40
(32.5 per cent) libraries felt the problem
of non availability of any software, others
either have developed their own software
or are satisfied with the software available
in the market and have no view of future
problems. He has recommended that a
comprehensive study should be
conducted in this regard.
Besides these surveys mostly
conducted in 1990s, little is written and
published in the literature to present the
status of library software in Pakistan.
Mahmood (1999) reviewed the
literature on the development of
computerized library services in
Pakistan and analyzed 124 items
(books, journal articles, reports,
conference/workshop proceedings and
some unpublished documents). In this
comprehensive literature search only 10
resources were mentioned regarding
library software issues in Pakistan.
Objectives and methodology
A review of the literature reveals that
in Pakistan, selection and evaluation of
library software is very difficult due to the
non-availability of any standard guide
and selection tool; and yet no
comprehensive study has been conducted
at national and local level to reveal the
current status of the library software and
its evaluation criteria in Pakistan.
Keeping this problem in mind a
comprehensive research study was
designed and Lahore, the second largest
city of Pakistan with a population of
about 10 million was chosen as a
purposive sample for the questionnaire
survey. The objectives of the study are to:
.list the software packages used in
the libraries of Lahore;
.develop a checklist for the evalua-
tion of the software packages;
.evaluate the most used library soft-
ware packages against the checklist
and seek librarians’ opinions about
these packages; and
.find out the librarians’ opinion
about most desired and needed
features of the Integrated Library
Software (ILS).
The study followed a typical social
science research approach, i.e.
questionnaire survey, interviews,
document analysis and personal
communication. After conducting a
comprehensive literature search, a
survey questionnaire and a checklist for
evaluating the ILS were developed. A
list of the automated libraries of Lahore
was prepared with the help of LIS
experts, telephonic communication with
different librarians and review of
assignments prepared by the library
science students. Thirty-one out of 86
automated libraries (academic, special
and public libraries) in Lahore using the
maximum features of library software
packages were chosen as a sample for
data collection against the checklist. The
principal author personally visited all
the selected libraries. On the basis of
findings of the study, four types of
software were found to be used the most
by the libraries of Lahore, i.e. LIMS,
WINISIS, LAMP and INMAGIC. This
paper aims to explore the software in
depth to find out the availability of
different features in the software.
Librarians’ opinions were also sought
about the software. To find out
librarians’ opinions about the most
desired and needed features of an ILS,
interviews were conducted with selected
librarians of Lahore. A list of eminent
librarians working in different libraries
of Lahore and having strong IT skills
was prepared with the help of personal
communication with experienced
library professionals. Selected librarians
ðn¼28Þwere contacted through email
to seek their consent for interview.
Seventeen responded and interviews
were conducted at their offices.
Collected data were analyzed both
quantitatively and qualitatively to reach
conclusions. statistical package for
social sciences (SPSS) (version 15) was
used for quantitative analysis.
Analysis of data
According to the survey results, 31
types of library software were being
used by the 84 automated libraries of
Lahore. Table I presents their names and
ranking according to their frequency of
LIBRARY HITECH NEWS Number 6 2008 7
use in the libraries of Lahore. To explore
the software in depth, the top four were
chosen for detailed study. The next
section presents a comparative analysis
of these four against a checklist
covering the different features of library
software such as the functions and reports
of five modules: ‘‘acquisition’’,
‘‘cataloging’’, ‘‘circulation’’, ‘‘serials
control’’, and ‘‘searching (in all
modules)’’. The availability of the various
facilities in these five modules of
WINISIS, LIMS, INMAGIC and LAMP
are presented in the Tables II-VII.
Functions and reports generation
Acquisition module
In the acquisition module, the
following functions were found only in
LIMS and LAMP, i.e. budget control,
checking of duplication, verification of
books with order file, and accession
work; while recording requests was
found only in LAMP. The function of
claiming for or cancellation of
outstanding orders was not found in any
of the software. The facility to generate
different reports, i.e. status of funds, was
found in LIMS and LAMP while
preparation of order cards/slips, print-
out of received and non-supplied
documents, status of order, and status of
requests was available only in LAMP
(Table II). Thus LAMP covers almost
all the features of acquisition module
and LIMS is in second place.
Cataloging module
In the cataloging module, original
cataloging, editing and deletion of
catalog records, and OPAC was
available in all four types of software.
Preparation of authority file was found
in WINISIS, INMAGIC and LAMP;
preparation of shelf list in WINISIS,
LIMS and LAMP; web OPAC in
WINISIS, LIMS and INMAGIC; while
importation of records from external
sources and centralized/cooperative and
shared cataloging was available in
WINISIS and INMAGIC. MARC-based
data entry was available in INMAGIC
only. In report generation of cataloging
module, the facility to list new catalog
records was found in LIMS, INMAGIC
and LAMP. The generation of spine
labels was available in LIMS and
LAMP, printed card catalogs in
INMAGIC and LAMP, while the
facility to list new and dropped authority
file terms was found only in INMAGIC
(Table III). In the cataloging module,
INMAGIC is the strongest package,
which covers most of the features.
Table I
Frequency distribution of different library software used in the libraries of Lahore
Names of the software Frequency Per cent
LIMS (local) 24 28.5
WINISIS and CDS/ISIS (foreign) 18 21.5
LAMP (local) 9 10.7
INMAGIC and INMAGIC DBText (foreign) 5 6.0
KITABDAR (local) 2 2.4
Atchison School – in-house 1 1.2
APIIT – in-house 1 1.2
Book Organizer Deluxe (foreign) 1 1.2
Children Hospital – in-house 1 1.2
EOSI_GOPAC (foreign) 1 1.2
Library Management System (local) 1 1.2
Global College – in-house 1 1.2
Gym Khana Library – in-house 1 1.2
ILM – in-house 1 1.2
Informatics – in-house 1 1.2
Iqra University – in-house 1 1.2
Kennaird College – in-house 1 1.2
Iqbal Academy – in-house 1 1.2
Education planner (local) 1 1.2
Library world 98 (foreign) 1 1.2
LIVE-2000 – in-house 1 1.2
Library manager (local) 1 1.2
OPSTec – in-house 1 1.2
Punjab College of Commerce – in-house 1 1.2
PICS – in-house 1 1.2
Shaukat .Khanum – in-house 1 1.2
Superior College – in-house 1 1.2
Trace College – in-house 1 1.2
University of Engineering and Technology – in-house 1 1.2
Virtua SLE (foreign) 1 1.2
Shiekh Zaid Hospital – in-house 1 1.2
Total 84 100
Table II
Availability of various facilities in acquisition module of library software packages
WINISIS LIMS INMAGIC LAMP T
Functions: 2
Budget control 33
Recording requests 31
Checking of duplication 332
Verification of books with order file 332
Claiming for or cancellation of outstanding orders 2
Accession work 332
Reports: 1
Preparation of order cards/slips 3
Print out of received and non-supplied document 31
Status of order 31
Status of requests 31
Status of funds 332
8LIBRARY HITECH NEWS Number 6 2008
Circulation module
In the circulation module, the
following functions were found in LIMS
and LAMP, i.e. registration of users,
charging and discharging of items,
renewal, calculation of fines, and setting
parameters for different categories of
members. While fine receiving, handling
photographs of members, and
stocktaking was available in LIMS; and
the reservation function was found only
in LAMP. Setting parameters for
different categories of items and a self-
charging function was not available in
any of the software. Similarly, the
following report generation options were
found in LIMS and LAMP only, i.e. book
availability status, book issuance history,
member wise issuance history, period
wise issuance history, overdue notices
production and list of members. The
production of membership cards was not
found in any of the software (Table IV).
Thus circulation is strongest in LIMS,
while LAMP is on the second place.
Serials control
The serials module was found with
the following functions in WINISIS,
LIMS and LAMP: i.e. creating purchase
orders, renewal and new, receipt of issues
and fund accounting, claiming issues not
received, cataloging, details of current
holdings and setting parameters for
different categories of members. Routing
and circulation of issues and
administration of binding was found only
in LIMS. Report generation facility of
lists of serials holding was found in
INMAGIC, LIMS and LAMP (Table V).
In serials control module, LIMS is found
to be the strongest package.
Searching in all modules
Key word searching, field wise
searching and browsing was found in all
the four types of software. String
searching was available in WINISIS,
LIMS and INMAGIC. Boolean and
truncation searching was found in
WINISIS, INMAGIC and LAMP.
Proximity searching was found in
WINISIS and INMAGIC, while range
searchingwasfoundinINMAGIConly
(Table VI). Analysis reveals the searching
facility of INMAGIC to be the best.
Librarians’ opinion about most used
library software
The opinions of librarians about
these software packages were collected
through a five-point scale. To see the
significance of difference between the
acquired means, further inferential
statistics, i.e. analysis of variance
(ANOVA) were used. ANOVA is a
statistical method establishing the
existence of a difference between
several sample means. The results show
that opinions of the respondents about
all the four types of software regarding
their documentation, training facilities,
maintenance and support, speed and
Table III
Availability of various facilities in cataloging module of library software packages
WINISIS LIMS INMAGIC LAMP T
Functions: 3333
Preparation of authority file
Original cataloging 333 34
MARC based data entry 31
Importation of records from external sources 33 2
Editing of catalog records 333 34
Deletion of catalog records 333 34
Preparation of shelf list 33 33
Centralized/cooperative and shared cataloging 33 2
OPAC 333 34
Web OPAC 333 3
Reports: 3
List of new catalog records 33 3
List of new and dropped authority file terms 31
Spine labels 332
Book labels 31
Barcode labels 0
Catalog cards 332
Table IV
Availability of various facilities in circulation module of library software packages
WINISIS LIMS INMAGIC LAMP T
Functions: 332
Registration of users
Charging and discharging of items 332
Renewal 332
Reservation 31
Calculation of fines 332
Fine receiving 31
Setting parameters for different categories
of members 332
Setting parameters for different categories
of items 0
Handling photographs of members 31
Stocktaking 31
Self-charging 0
Reports: 2
Book availability status 33
Book issuance history 332
Member wise issuance history 332
Period wise issuance history 332
Overdue notices production 332
Production of membership card 0
List of members 332
LIBRARY HITECH NEWS Number 6 2008 9
data input facility are almost same
because there is no significant
difference (at the 0.05 alpha level)
among the means of the software. On
the other hand, opinions about the
following attributes were found to be
significantly different among the four
types of software, i.e. online help, easy
installation, freedom from errors,
compatibility with hardware, overall
suitability of the software for the library,
reports, web compatibility, and
availability of all desired software
modules. A post hoc multiple
comparison least significant difference
(LSD) was applied to find out the
difference of the means between the
types of software. The LSD method is a
very effective test for detecting true
differences in means if it is applied only
after the F-test in the ANOVA is
significant at 5 per cent/0.05 alpha level.
The results show that according to the
librarians’ opinion, INMAGIC was
rated as excellent on ease of use
compared with the other three types
of software. WINISIS and LIMS
were rated significantly higher than
INMAGIC and LAMP on price-wise
affordability. Online help in LAMP was
rated as significantly poorer than in the
other three types of software. Similarly,
easy installation of LAMP was also less
satisfactory but highly satisfactory in
INMAGIC, than it was in LIMS and
WINISIS. The error-freeness of LAMP
and WINISIS was significantly lower
than in LIMS and INMAGIC. The
Compatibility with hardware of LAMP
was significantly low, but was
significantly higher in INMAGIC than it
was in WINISIS and LIMS. The
respondents considered WINISIS and
LAMP significantly lower in suitability
for their libraries, while LIMS and
INMAGIC were found to be more
suitable. WINISIS was rated as
significantly low in reports generation,
and INMAGIC was rated as significantly
excellent compared with than LIMS and
LAMP. The web compatibility of LAMP
was significantly poor and comparatively
better in INMAGIC than it was in
WINISIS and LIMS. The availability of
all the desired software modules was
significantly poor in WINISIS, but
significantly excellent in INMAGIC
(Table VII).
In an open ended question, the
librarians were asked to mention why
they have chosen these types of
software. Most of them pointed out that
they had no other choice than to choose
them due to lack of funds and easy
availability in the market.
Table VII
ANOVA table for librarians’ opinion about attributes of the library software
Sr. Attributes WINISIS LIMS INMAGIC LAMP FSignificance
1. Easiness to use 3.39 4.04 4.80 3.33 3.443 0.023*
2. Price-wise affordability 4.78 4.48 2.60 3.22 8.615 0.000*
3. Documentation 3.28 2.48 3.40 2.67 2.069 0.116
4. Training facilities 3.50 3.48 2.80 3.33 0.039 0.989
5. Maintenance and support 2.89 3.52 3.00 2.22 2.386 0.080
6. Online help 3.22 2.65 3.60 1.89 3.040 0.037*
7. Easy installation 4.22 4.48 4.60 3.33 3.773 0.016*
8. Error-free 2.33 3.43 3.80 1.78 7.796 0.000*
9. Speed 3.56 4.17 4.20 3.22 2.448 0.074
10. Compatibility with hardware 3.50 4.26 4.80 3.11 4.491 0.007*
11. Overall suitability of the
software for your library 2.94 4.00 4.20 2.56 7.053 0.000*
12. Data input facility 3.72 3.96 4.00 3.00 2.220 0.097
13. Reports 2.39 3.52 4.60 3.33 7.180 0.000*
14. Web compatibility 2.94 2.96 3.60 1.33 6.094 0.001*
15. Availability of all desired
software modules 1.44 3.39 4.60 2.33 26.846 0.000*
16. Searching facility 4.11 4.00 4.80 3.78 1.318 0.279
Notes: Scale: 1 ¼poor; 2 ¼fair; 3 ¼good; 4 ¼very good; 5 ¼excellent
Table V
Availability of various facilities in serials control module of library software
packages
WINISIS LIMS INMAGIC LAMP T
Functions: 33 33
Creating purchase orders; renewal and new
Receipt of issues and fund accounting 33 33
Claiming issues not received 33 2
Cataloging 33 33
Details of current holdings 33 33
Routing and circulation of issues 31
Administration of binding 31
Reports: 33 33
Lists of serials holding
Table VI
Availability of various searching facilities (in all modules) of library software
packages
WINISIS LIMS INMAGIC LAMP T
Functions: 333 34
Key word searching
Field wise searching 333 34
Boolean searching 3333
String searching 333 3
Truncation searching 3333
Proximity searching 33 2
Range searching 31
Browsing 333 34
10 LIBRARY HITECH NEWS Number 6 2008
Which features do librarians want in
ILS?
Interviews were conducted to find
out librarians’ opinions about the most
desired and needed features of ILS. All
the interviewees agreed that before
selecting any ILS, the library’s actual
and perceived needs, available resources
and funds should be kept in mind by
doing an strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats (SWOT)
analysis. They pointed out that a small
sized special library does not need any
high performance database like Oracle,
SQL Server etc.; such a library can
easily be managed through some light-
weight software running on MySQL,
PostgreSQL or even on MS Access.
Besides this, the respondents have
mentioned different features of ILS
(Table VIII). They opined that ILS
should meet contemporary standards
and protocols like MARC, and Z39.50
ðn¼14Þ. It should provide a
comprehensive circulation module
along with acquisition, cataloging,
support/maintenance by the vendors
beside online help and provision of user/
administration training and up-grading.
It should be able to integrate all library
operations and services ðn¼13Þ, and
provide unicode support ðn¼12Þ,
serial management and e-resource
management ðn¼11Þ, OPAC/web
OPAC, detailed reporting and RFID
ðn¼10Þ. Administrative tools, i.e.
MIS, DSS and statistics of all modules
and next-generation portals should be
available and it should be user friendly
ðn¼9Þ. An ILS should be inexpensive/
cost effective ðn¼7Þ, along with
having a strong searching module
ðn¼6Þ. It should provide authority
control, system-generated CAS and SDI
on the basis of already maintained users’
profiles. It should be flexible for future
change like personalization for users.
Off-campus and outreach servicing,
compatibility with hardware/capacity to
run on different applications,
documentation ðn¼5Þ, and indexing
and abstracting are also important
features ðn¼4Þ. It should be able to
store links to access available digital
versions of publications, support other
devices, i.e. CCTV, RFID, bar code,
camera and scanning, A-V
conferencing, voicemail integration,
etc.; copy cataloging and handling of all
traditional and modern library functions.
There should be an unlimited users
license without any renewal fee ðn¼3Þ.
Information gateway, academic/course
reserves, cross referencing, and virtual
reference services should also be
provided ðn¼2Þ.
Findings
According to the librarians’ opinions,
INMAGIC was rated as the best
compared to other three types of
software regarding its ease of use,
documentation, online help, easy
installation, error-freeness, speed,
compatibility with hardware, overall
suitability for their libraries, input
facility, reports, web compatibility,
availability of all desired software
modules and searching facility.
Similarly, according to the reviewed
literature LAMP and WINISIS were
found to be the most recommended
software. But the software evaluation
against checklist reveals a different
picture. According to the acquired
results, LAMP and LIMS were stronger
in acquisition and circulation modules
than INMAGIC and WINISIS, where
the acquisition module is almost not
available. On the other hand, the
cataloging module and the searching
facilities of INMAGIC and WINISIS
were stronger than in LIMS and LAMP.
The serials control module was stronger
in LIMS than in WINISIS and LAMP,
while this module was not available in
Table VIII
Frequency distribution of librarians’ opinion about most desired and needed
features of ILS (n ¼17)
Sr Features Frequency
1. Should meet contemporary standards and protocols like MARC, Z39.50 14
2. Comprehensive circulation module along with acquisition, cataloging 13
3. Support/maintenance – online help/provision of customer service
telephone number for help/user/admin training and up-gradation 13
4. Ability to integrate all library operations and services 13
5. Unicode 12
6. Serial management 11
7. E-resource management 11
8. OPAC/web OPAC 10
9. Detailed reporting 10
10. RFID 10
11. Availability of administrative tools – statistics of all modules,
i.e. MIS, DSS, etc. 9
12. Next-generation portals 9
13. User friendly 9
14. Inexpensive/cost effective 7
15. Strong searching module 6
16. Authority control 5
17. System-generated CAS and SDI on the basis of already maintained
users’ profiles 5
18. Flexibility for future change like personalization for users 5
19. Off-campus and outreach servicing 5
20. Compatibility with hardware/capacity to run on different applications 5
21. Documentation 5
22. Indexing and abstracting 4
23. Ability to store links to access available digital version of publications 3
24. Supportive of other devices, i.e. CCTV, RFID, bar code, camera
and scanning, A-V conferencing, voicemail integration, etc. 3
25. Copy cataloging and handling of all traditional and modern library
functions 3
26. No renewal fee. Unlimited users license 3
27. Information gateway 2
28. Academic/course reserves 2
29. Cross referencing 2
30. Virtual reference service 2
LIBRARY HITECH NEWS Number 6 2008 11
INMAGIC. These findings present
LIMS and LAMP as a stronger
candidature due to the availability of
almost all the desired software modules.
LAMP is DOS-based software, which is
losing its acceptability as user-friendly
and easy-to-use software. On the other
hand LIMS, a free of cost software
which seems to be in second place
according to the librarians’ opinions, is
gaining popularity among librarians due
to the availability of all the desired
modules. That is the reason why most of
the small and medium sized libraries are
switching to LIMS. It was observed that
the features proposed by the librarians
were almost all covered in the checklist
prepared by the researchers. According
to their criteria, LIMS is the only
software which covers most of the
features.
Conclusion and recommendations
Keeping the findings of the study in
mind, the following conclusions and
recommendations are made:
(1) Librarians should conduct a survey
of different automated libraries for
exchange of experience before
selecting software for their li-
braries.
(2) Standard library software among
the available choices should be
chosen, which can facilitate the
exchange of data among the li-
braries through computer network-
ing and can be helpful for future
resource sharing.
(3) A group of automated libraries
should be formed not only at local
but national levels.
(4) The library schools and PLA
should provide proper technical
and practical training in use of
software, which is the most im-
portant part of library automation.
(5) Software providers/vendors espe-
cially, who are providing software
free of cost should also provide
proper software training, online
help and establish online user
groups to facilitate the librarians
and software users to share their
problems and solutions with each
other.
(6) Seminars/workshops should be
conducted to find out the librarians’
experience and views about the
different library software. Library
schools and PLA can play a vital
role in this regard.
(7) The concept of consortium and its
benefits should be introduced to the
librarians through seminars and
workshops.
(8) Mostly used and free of cost
available software LIMS, should
be upgraded to meet the interna-
tional standards and to provide the
best performance. After upgrading,
it should be chosen as the standard
software for providing the facility
of data exchange among libraries
(especially small and medium
libraries) through computer
networking.
(9) Foreign software that is providing
the best features, services and is
very high in cost should be avail-
able at low cost for developing
countries like Pakistan, through
large scale purchases, or simplified
versions.
(10)The checklist developed for this
study should be used for software
evaluation before selecting it for a
library.
REFERENCES
Cohn, J.M. and Kelsey, A.L. (1997),
Planning for Library Automation: A
Practical Handbook, Library Association,
London.
Farooq, M.U. (1997), ‘‘Analysis, evaluation,
and future of LAMP in Pakistan’’,
unpublished master’s thesis, Islamia
University, Bahawalpur.
Haider, S.J. (1998), ‘‘Library automation in
Pakistan’’, Library Review, Vol. 30,
pp. 51-69.
Idrees, H. (1995), ‘‘The library automation
in Lahore’’, unpublished master’s thesis,
University of the Punjab, Lahore.
Indri
uunas, P. (2006), ‘‘Software defect,
feature and requirements management
system’’, available at: www. scirus.com/
srsapp/sciruslink?src¼ndl& etd.library.lt/
(accessed 7 April 2007).
Maghabghab, D.B. (1997), Automating
Media Centers and Small Libraries: A
Micro Computer Approach, Libraries
Unlimited, Englewood.
Mahmood, K. (1995), ‘‘Library software in
Pakistan’’, Information Development,Vol.11
No. 3, pp. 165-7.
Mahmood, K. (1996), ‘‘Status of library
automation in Pakistan’’, Library Review,
Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 36-42.
Mahmood, K. (1997), ‘‘The best library
software for developing countries: more
than 30 plus points of Micro CDS/ISIS’’,
Library Software Review, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 12-16.
Mahmood, K. (1998), ‘‘Use of Micro CDS/
ISIS in Pakistan: a survey’’, INSPEL, Vol.
32 No. 1, pp. 23-39.
Mahmood, K. (1999), ‘‘The development of
computerized library services in Pakistan: a
review of the literature’’, Asian Libraries,
Vol. 8 No. 9, pp. 307-28.
Mandelbaum, J.B. (1992), Small Project
Automation for Libraries and Information
Centers, Meckler, Westport, CT.
Maqsood, A. (1993), ‘‘Library automation:
survey of computerised library services in
the Federal Area (Islamabad/Rawalpindi)’’,
in Fida, M. (Ed.), Challenges in Automating
the Library Services, Department of Library
and Information Science, University of
Peshawar, Peshawar, pp. 47-9.
Mustafa, G. (2000), ‘‘Comparative study of
LAMP & INMAGIC Software’’,
unpublished master’s thesis, Islamia
University, Bahawalpur.
Pakistan Library Automation Group (2005),
‘‘Library information and management
system (LIMS)’’, available at:
www.paklag.org/lims.html (accessed 2
June 2008).
Prytherch, R. (2005), Harrod’s Librarians’
Glossary and Reference Book, 10th ed.,
Gower, Ashgate.
Ramazan, M. (2002), ‘‘Utilization levels and
librarians’ attitudes toward information
technology (IT) applications in academic
and research libraries in Pakistan’’,
unpublished PhD thesis, St. George
University International St. Kitts, Grenada.
Riaz, B.A. (1990), ‘‘LUMS library
experience with automation’’, PULSAA
News, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 92-5.
Riaz, B.A. (1993), ‘‘Library automation
problems in Pakistan’’, in Fida, M. (Ed.),
Challenges in Automating the Library
Services, Department of Library &
Information Science, University of
Peshawar, Peshawar, pp. 27-34.
Shafique, F. (2004), ‘‘Comparative study of
the software used in the libraries of Lahore’’,
inpublished master’s thesis, University of
the Punjab, Lahore.
Shafique, F. and Mahmood, K. (2007),
‘‘Librarians’ opinions about library
12 LIBRARY HITECH NEWS Number 6 2008
software: a survey of libraries in Lahore’’,
The Electronic Library,Vol.25No.6,
pp. 766-77.
Waller, N. (2003), ‘‘Model RFP for
integrated library system products’’,
Library Technology Reports, Vol. 39 No. 4,
pp. 1-72.
Farzana Shafique (alakhdarem
2001@yahoo.com) Department of
Library and Information Science, The
Islamia University of Bahawalpur,
Punjab Province, Pakistan
Khalid Mahmood (khalid@dlis.
pu.edu.pk) Department of Library and
Information Science, University of the
Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
LIBRARY HITECH NEWS Number 6 2008 13
