Integrated library management systems. Comparative analysis of Koha, Libsys, NewGenLib, and Virtua
| Pages | 223-249 |
| Published date | 04 April 2016 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-08-2014-0127 |
| Date | 04 April 2016 |
| Author | Margam Madhusudhan,Vikas Singh |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Information & communications technology,Internet |
Integrated library management
systems
Comparative analysis of Koha, Libsys,
NewGenLib, and Virtua
Margam Madhusudhan and Vikas Singh
Department of Library and Information Science, University of Delhi,
Delhi, India
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze the various features and functions of Koha, Libsys,
NewGenLib and Virtua with the help of specially designed evaluation checklist and rank them based on
features/functions of integrated library management system (ILMS).
Design/methodology/approach – The evaluation approach taken in this paper is similar to that of
Singh and Sanaman (2012) and Madhusudhan and Shalini (2014) with minor modications, comprising
306 features/functions and categorized as ten broad categories.
Findings – The paper explores different features of open source (OS) and commercial ILMS, which
reveals that Virtua got the highest total score of 218 (77.86 per cent), followed by Koha ILMS with 204
score (72.86 per cent). Interestingly, NewGenLib got the lowest total score, that is, 163 (58.21 per cent).
ILMS under study are lagging behind in exploiting the full potential of the Web 2.0 features, including
cloud computing features, and needs to be addressed in their future development.
Practical implications – It is hoped that both the OS and commercial software will attend to the
lacunae and soon develop fully functional Web 2.0/3.0 and cloud-based technologies.
Originality/value – The ndings of this paper will not only guide the librarians in the selection of a
good ILMS, which can cater to the needs of their libraries, but also abreast the knowledge of evaluation
of ILMS for the students of Library and Information Science. And the ndings will help the ILMS
vendors to know the limitations of their ILMS, so that they can overcome the limitations faced by users
and improve their products.
Keywords Evaluation, Open source software, Koha, Library automation,
Integrated library management systems, Libsys, NewGenLib, Virtua
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Library management systems (LMSs) are established as an essential tool in the support
of effective customer services, stock management and management of services offered
by libraries. They are “based on the knowledge and experience of library professionals
over many decades” (Rai and Kumar, 2011). “Library automation not only improves the
image of the library services, but also provides additional services to the users with the
existing staff” (Dhanavandan and Tamizhchelvan, 2012). Integrated library
management systems (ILMSs) vary by several factors, including scalability, database
type, operating system compatibility, support for bibliographic record formats and
interoperability. These factors can be inuenced by whether an ILMS is open source
(OS) or proprietary, and the “selection of relevant software is an important step in the
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0264-0473.htm
Integrated
library
management
systems
223
Received 5 August 2014
Revised 6 February 2015
Accepted 4 April 2015
TheElectronic Library
Vol.34 No. 2, 2016
pp.223-249
©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0264-0473
DOI 10.1108/EL-08-2014-0127
library automation process” (Hussain and Ansari, 2007). The purpose of this study is to
examine the current features and facilities of the various ILMS under study: namely
Koha, Libsys, NewGenLib and Virtua. The study also analyzes these ILMSs for the
features in each module to update librarians on what considerations to take when
choosing ILMS for their libraries.
2. Review of related literature
There are many articles and case studies available on this topic by various authors;
some of the more relevant articles are reviewed below. Singh and Sanaman (2012) stated
that “Koha has more specic characteristics/features and advanced database features,
whereas NewGenLib has better functionality of modules than Koha”, and Anuradha
et al. (2011) praised the “full-text search features in the widely used open-source library
automation package Koha”. These “next generation library systems purport to ll the
changing needs of libraries” (Wang and Dawes, 2012). Lihitkar and Lihitkar (2011)
examined ten selected software packages on the basis of their usability and
implementation in libraries. From the ten, Libsys was the most highly rated one having
37 software features, followed by the SOUL software with 36 points. The authors opined
that it was necessary to improve the quality of software for providing effective services.
Vasupongayya et al. (2011) focused on reviewing OS LMS packages on their abilities
to perform four basic components: traditional services, inter-library loan management,
managing electronic materials and basic common management systems, such as
security, an alerting system and statistical reports. Few ILMS are fully web-compatible
and support maximum technological features (Rai and Kumar, 2011). Pratheepan (2013)
reported on the merits and demerits of OS and commercial LMSs. Sunil and
Harinarayana (2011) presented the performance of nine OS ILMSs of their housekeeping
modules and viability indicators. Tajoli et al. (2011) described the main Koha features
and functions. Pandey and Singh (2011) found that NewGenLib is more specic than
Koha, as it does not have digital library functionality towards building digital libraries
in terms of the programming, data structure and other required technology, which
results in more interactive and powerful features with metadata enrichment. Shalini and
Madhusudhan (2011) compared the OS web-based online public access catalogues
(OPACs) of select university libraries of east and west to assess the level of changes and
development made by libraries in the developing world. OS OPACs are more favourable
to the ideal next-generation catalogue than proprietary OPACs, and Koha offers faceted
navigation (Yang and Hofmann, 2010).
The Koha 3.0 LMS supports the wide-ranging needs of a busy and fast-growing
specialist library (Bissels and Chandeler, 2010). Koha’s OPAC integrates many
enhanced content features typical of Web 2.0, including really simple syndication (RSS)
feeds to notify patrons of new acquisitions in their area of interest, tagging and comment
boxes for search results (Pruett and Choi, 2013). The services involved in the open source
software (OSS) support might include: conversion services, installation, conguration,
training, ongoing support, hosting and custom development (Breeding, 2007). Although
dedicated IT staff is not present in many libraries around the world, increased
functionalities and better manuals could encourage even in those libraries for the OSS
implementation (Macan et al., 2013).
Neelakandan et al. (2010) discussed the problems encountered during the
implementation of Koha. Virtua covered most of the functional attributes that comply
EL
34,2
224
To continue reading
Request your trial