Library Hi TechOpen Source Software solutions in Indian librariesAnilkumar Hanumappa Mallikarjun Dora Viral Navik

Article information:To cite this document:Anilkumar Hanumappa Mallikarjun Dora Viral Navik , (2014),"Open Source Software solutions in Indianlibraries", Library Hi Tech, Vol. 32 Iss 3 pp. 409 - 422Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHT-12-2013-0157

Downloaded on: 27 November 2014, At: 01:42 (PT)References: this document contains references to 38 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 156 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:XianRong Huang, Ting Hao, (2014),"System of digital publishing policies and regulations in China", LibraryHi Tech, Vol. 32 Iss 3 pp. 397-408 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHT-06-2013-0082Teja Koler-Povh, Matjaž Mikoš, Goran Turk, (2014),"Institutional repository as an important part of scholarlycommunication", Library Hi Tech, Vol. 32 Iss 3 pp. 423-434 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHT-10-2013-0146Philip Hider, Lisa M. Given, Paul Scifleet, (2014),"Community information portals: content and designissues for information access", Library Hi Tech, Vol. 32 Iss 3 pp. 435-449 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHT-02-2014-0013

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 404468 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

San

Fran

cisc

o A

t 01:

42 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Open Source Software solutionsin Indian libraries

Anilkumar Hanumappa, Mallikarjun Dora and Viral NavikVikram Sarabhai Library, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the Open Source Software (OSS) market relevant toIndian libraries and more specifically, to review the existing library automation, i.e. Integrated LibraryManagement System (ILMS) and Digital Library (DL) software solutions.Design/methodology/approach – Survey method was adopted to collect data for this study and thesample population for this study included 356 library professionals.Findings – The study findings indicate presence of OSS like Koha and NewGenLib in the ILMScategory and Dspace, Eprints and Greenstone in the DL software category in India. The study alsoindicates that there is considerable interest among Indian libraries to adopt or migrate to OSS.Research limitations/implications – The sample included largely, more than 80 percent,responses from the academic library segment and hence the results and analysis maybe more skewedto the academic library segment. However the implications of this study could be extended to othertype of libraries and facilitate library professionals to make software choices with respect to libraryautomation.Originality/value – In addition to exploring the opportunities of OSS implementation in Indianlibraries, the study includes issues related to migration, implementation, budget, training, etc.The study would have value for library professionals and OSS vendors to understand the Indianlibrary market in the context of OSS.

Keywords Digital libraries, Open Source Software, Library automation, Information technologies

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionOpen Source Software (OSS) applications are gaining widespread support and we findmany national governments adopting policies that encourage educational institutionsto adopt OSS (Davidson, 2008). The philosophy underlying OSS is to allow users, freeaccess to and use of software source code, which can then be adopted, modified andredistributed in its original or modified form for further use, modification andredistribution (Erlich and Aviv, 2007). The successful examples of OSS solutionsinclude operating systems like LINUX, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD, web browsersthat include Firefox and Konqueror, graphical environments like KDE and Gnome,productivity applications like OpenOffice and programming languages andinfrastructure solutions like Apache and MySQL (Kalliamvakou, 2007).

The market potential of OSS seems to be quite promising and could pose majorchallenges to the dominant position of proprietary software (Nagy et al., 2010).Increasingly OSS solutions are being adopted and it is interesting to note that OSS arebeing deployed in areas where service levels were expected to be same or better thanclosed-source alternatives (Driver, 2012).

Libraries also have been active in adopting OSS and in this context, Krist (2009)describes the partnership between OSS and library to be natural, as both of them sharethe same ethical and philosophical resolve. OSS for libraries can be broadly categorizedinto two groups; one “that is a complete system that handles all the tasks related to aservice and the other as a tool that performs specific tasks and can be integrated intoother components to create new services” (Tennant, 2003). Plotting the history of OSS

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0737-8831.htm

Received 5 December 2013Revised 11 January 2014

28 January 2014Accepted 2 February 2014

Library Hi TechVol. 32 No. 3, 2014

pp. 409-422r Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0737-8831DOI 10.1108/LHT-12-2013-0157

409

OSS solutions inIndian libraries

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

San

Fran

cisc

o A

t 01:

42 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

implementation in libraries, Jaffe and Careaga (2007) identified many milestones, andprobably among them the establishment of OSS4LIB (at the Yale Medical Library)and the development of Koha software (for the Horowhenua Library Trust) in 1999could be considered as two of the outstanding developments (Krishnamurthy, 2008).

Breeding (2012) in his automation marketplace survey, found that many librariescontinued to opt for open source ILMS rather than a proprietary product and amongthem those that had become mainstream were Evergreen and Koha, as they offeredfeatures comparable to proprietary products. The survey also mentions that there werecommercial companies offering migration, hosting and support services for adoption ofthese OSS solutions.

In Indian libraries, the OSS that were being used included Koha and NewGenLib inthe ILMS sector and Dspace, Greenstone and Eprints in the DL sector (Singh andSanaman, 2012; Jose, 2007; Warr and Hangsing, 2009). In recent times we have hadlarge Indian libraries migrating from proprietary ILMS solutions to OSS solutions likeMysore University, IIM Ahmedabad, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangaloreand The British Libraries (India and Sri Lanka) (www.osslabs.biz/koha).

In addition to the ILMS and Digital Library (DL), there are other applications of OSSthat are useful to libraries in accessing, managing and searching electronic resourceslike federated searching, serials management, link resolvers and A-Z journal listing(http://researcher.sfu.ca). It is in this context that it may be worthwhile to study theoverall library software market in the context of OSS.

2. Objectives of the studyThe main objectives of the study were to:

. identify the ILMS and DL software solutions that are popular among the Indianlibraries;

. study the satisfaction levels among Indian library professionals with regard tothe existing ILMS;

. identify the areas in a library, apart from ILMS and DL that may have thepotential for OSS implementation in India;

. study the advantages and barriers to OSS implementation in India; and

. explore the interest levels among Indian library professionals in adopting OSS.

3. Literature reviewProbably, one of the early experimentations of OSS implementation in libraries was byChudnov (1999) when he developed a library website at the Yale University based on anOSS. In the same year Schlumpf (1999) had developed a simple OSS-based librarysystem called Avanti. Koha was a major development in the OSS arena and wasconsidered a fully matured and complete OSS ILMS (Schlumpf, 1999; Tennant, 2003).

Breeding (2010, 2011), in his annual library perception surveys, found a growinginterest and acceptance in OSS ILMS solutions. In his recent perception survey,Breeding (2012), found that, for libraries using a proprietary ILMS solution, theirinterest in OSS ILMS was inversely related to their satisfaction with existing ILMS. Healso reported that though his survey indicated a fall in the interest in OSS ILMS, whencompared to previous surveys, many libraries indicated interest in migrating to OSSILMS. Payne and Singh (2010) found that libraries were seeking alternatives to

410

LHT32,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

San

Fran

cisc

o A

t 01:

42 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

proprietary applications and indicated eagerness to adopt OSS solutions. Poulter (2010)observed that OSS aids libraries and had great potential but was hobbled by itsintrinsically technical appeal. An international study on perceptions on adoption ofOSS in libraries indicated a very positive response and further found that developingcountries indicated higher interests in OSS solutions when compared to developedcountries (Rafiq, 2009).

Analyzing the advantages of OSS for libraries, Morgan (2002), emphasized on thevarious opportunities offered by OSS, including possibility to take control of libraryservices and collection, lowering the barriers of learning process and giving back to thecommunity at large, by contributing to the OSS development. According to Frumkin(2002), OSS would help in empowering libraries, through knowledge andunderstanding, by adopting and participating in development of OSS solutions.Corrado (2005) found that OSS could benefit libraries through lower initial and ongoingcost, eliminate vendor lock in and provide for greater flexibility.

Krist (2009) suggested that for libraries with inadequate financial resources to fundproprietary software solutions, OSS was an excellent option. Wan (2007) was of theopinion that though libraries could save on their spending by implementing OSSsolutions they should be concerned with the maintenance and support issues. Muir(2005) found that there was a cost advantage while implementing OSS when comparedto commercial software but the possibility of inadequate technical support ininstallation and implementation of OSS existed.

Rafiq and Ameen (2009) in their paper on OSS application in Pakistani libraries,mentioned that issues like digital divide, conceptual confusion, social disparity, lack oftechnological, financial and human development factors affected the decision to adoptOSS in libraries.

In a comparative study of seven OSS-based ILMS solutions, Balnaves (2008) foundthat “while Koha shows the most sophistication in managing the open sourcedevelopment process, Evergreen and Gnuteea exhibit strong object-oriented designphilosophy in their code and schema design. Emilda, OpenBiblio and PhpMyLibrarycontinue to have a role in serving the small libraries because of their relative ease ofimplementation and simple, intuitive interfaces.”

In a survey of libraries that were using Koha, Evergreen and proprietary ILMS,conducted by Riewe (2008), it was found that open source ILMS were perceived to beless costly, more cost effective and affordable when compared to the proprietary ones.The findings also revealed that libraries using OSS ILMS were modestly more satisfiedthan libraries using proprietary ILMS, though they experienced difficulties withinstallation and incomplete documentation.

In another study that reviewed 20 Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) ILMS,Muller (2011), rated Koha at the top, closely followed Evergreen and PMB. Kiriyanant(2012) in the study of ILMS systems at the Thai University libraries found that, about59percent of the respondents chose to adopt OSS ILMS over the current proprietarysolutions and about 55percent indicated Koha as their choice.

Comparing Koha and NewGenLib, two popular OSS ILMS in India, Singhand Sanaman (2012) found that both the solutions had their own advantages anddisadvantages and library professionals had to make necessary considerations whilechoosing an OSS ILMS for their libraries.

In an interesting review of various open source ILMS solutions that were availablein the market, Vasupongayya et al. (2011) explored functionalities in these solutions toperform four basic components that included traditional services, inter library loan

411

OSS solutions inIndian libraries

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

San

Fran

cisc

o A

t 01:

42 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

management, managing electronic materials and basic management systems such assecurity, alert system and statistical reports.

Singh (2013) studied the experiences of 20 librarians who worked in libraries thathad migrated to or were planning to migrate to OSS ILS and recommended guidelinesthat could be useful to libraries that were interested in migrating to OSS ILS.

One of the interesting studies on the DL software solutions, Goh et al. (2006)evaluated various OSS solutions based on the criteria of comprehensiveness, usability,flexibility and expandability and found that Greenstone was rated as the bestperformer, followed by CDSware, Fedora and Eprint.

In another study on OSS DL software, Mittal and Mahesh (2008) found that Dspace,GSDL and Eprints were used in the creation of DL and institutional repositories in India.

4. MethodologyThe survey questionnaire method was adopted for data collection, as it suitedrequirements for collecting data in a standard format, from the subjects who werevaried in terms of geographic location and type of library that they represented. Thequestionnaire consisted of two parts, the first part sought information on the name ofthe institute and type of library and the second part sought information on the name ofthe ILMS used, satisfaction with current ILMS, interest in migrating to new software,preferred software solution, DL software used, areas where OSS could be implementedin libraries and finally, the problems and prospects of OSS.

Since the objective of the paper was to explore and study the status, interest andpotential of OSS adoption in Indian libraries, the sample population targeted was thatof library and information professionals from different parts of India. The structuredquestionnaire, as described above, was developed and uploaded online using SurveyMonkey. Library professionals were invited to participate in the survey throughvarious library e-mail groups and Facebook pages. The exercise was repeated every 15days over a period of six months (June-December 2012) to seek larger participation inthe survey.

5. Data analysis and discussionIn all, 375 library professionals across the country participated in the survey duringthe six months (June-December 2012) as indicated in the methodology. Thequestionnaires were checked for completeness and inconsistencies and finally 356responses were found to be valid and useful for the study.

5.1 Type of libraryFigure 1 depicts the distribution of the sample population in terms of type ofinstitutions and clearly shows that the responses were largely from the academiclibrary sector. The academic library responses were 288 in number covering more than81 percent of the total sample population of 356 responses, followed by special libraries(research) with 62 responses (17 percent) and the public library and corporate libraryresponses were similar in number with three each, contributing to just 1 percent of thesample population.

5.2 Libraries by size of collectionThe Table I shows the distribution of the sample population in terms of the collectionsize of the libraries. It is quite evident from the table that about 30 percent of thelibraries had collections more than 50,000.

412

LHT32,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

San

Fran

cisc

o A

t 01:

42 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

5.3 Library automation in IndiaAs Table II reveals, in response to the question on the use of ILMS in libraries, morethan 92 percent of the respondents reported that they were using an ILMS in theirlibraries. In total 7 percent of the respondents indicated that they were not using anyILMS and two respondents did not indicate any response to this question. If we were toextrapolate this finding to the latest available census of Indian libraries (NationalKnowledge Commission, 2009), nearly 38,000 libraries may not have an ILMS in place.

5.4 Types of ILMS usedTable III shows that the most popular ILMS in India was LIBSYS, with about 21percent responses (70 numbers), followed by SOUL with about 12 percent (39responses) and the next two of the popular ILMS were Koha (above 10 percent ofthe responses) and NewGenLib with nearly 10 percent of the responses. It is interesting

Academic81%

Corporate1%

Public1%

Special(Research)

17%

Note: n=356

Figure 1.Institution types

Total library collection (n¼ 353) Frequency %

Upto 5,000 59 16.715,000-20,000 100 28.3220,000-50,000 80 22.6650,000-100,000 54 15.290.1-0.3 million 35 9.910.3-0.5 million 16 4.53More than 0.5 million 9 2.54Total response 353 100.00

Table I.Collection of the libraries

Library using ILMS (n¼ 354) No. of libraries %

Yes 329 92.93No 25 7.06Total responses 354 100.00

Table II.Libraries using ILMS

413

OSS solutions inIndian libraries

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

San

Fran

cisc

o A

t 01:

42 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

to note that the free software E-granthalaya and WINISIS found favor with about 6 and1 percent of the responses, respectively, and hence it could be said that approximately70 percent of the ILMS market was covered by proprietary solutions while rest by opensource and free solutions. The Indian ILMS space seems to be rich with a variety ofsolutions and OSS solutions may have a promising future, going by the fact that theyhave had a recent entry into the Indian markets compared to the proprietary solutions.

It is also interesting to note that among the ILMS solutions that were indicated inthe study, 262 (80 percent) of the responses included Indian origin solutions like Libsys,SOUL, NewGenLib, Egranthalaya, etc. Among the Indian OSS solutions, NewGenLibwas launched originally as a proprietary product in 2005 and later on was declared asopen source in 2008.

5.5 ILMS satisfaction surveyThe data on satisfaction of the respondents with existing ILMS is reflected in Table IVand Figure 2. The ratings by averages (mean) indicated that the highest satisfactionscore was achieved by VTLS with a rating 6.9, followed by Libsoft (6.66), Koha (6.64)and Alice (6.61). However, going by the ratings based on the most preferred satisfactionscore (mode), Koha and VTLS lead the ranking with a score of 8 followed by SLIM witha score of 7. Interestingly the big players (in terms of number of responses), Libsys andSOUL were rated around 6 and 5, both by averages (mean) and by most indicatedresponses (mode).

If we consider ILMS’s that were indicated by at least 5 percent (15 or more innumber) responses (from the sample of 329), Koha stands out in terms of the mostindicated (mode) satisfaction score of 8, highest mean score of 6.64 and also highestmedian score of 7.

The overall picture, as shown in Figure 2, seems to indicate that the ILMS’s in Indianeed to improve in terms of satisfaction levels among the existing customers. The OSSsolutions have decent satisfaction scores and look promising to serve the ILMS needsof the Indian libraries.

ILMS using (n¼ 329) Software type Country of origin No. of libraries %

LIBSYS Proprietary Indian 70 21.28SOUL Proprietary Indian 39 11.85Koha Open source New Zealand 33 10.03NewGenLib Open source Indian 31 9.42ALICE for Windows Proprietary Australia 20 6.08E Granthalaya Free software Indian 20 6.08SLIM Proprietary Indian 11 3.34Virtua, VTLS Proprietary USA 11 3.34LIBSOFT Proprietary Indian 9 2.74AUTOLIB Proprietary Indian 8 2.43LibSuite Proprietary Indian 5 1.52LIBMAN Proprietary Indian 5 1.52Library Manager Proprietary Indian 5 1.52Delplus Proprietary Indian 4 1.22EASYLIB Proprietary Indian 4 1.22Libex Proprietary Indian 4 1.22WINISIS Free software France 3 0.91Others 47 14.29

Table III.ILMS used in India

414

LHT32,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

San

Fran

cisc

o A

t 01:

42 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

5.6 Migration to new ILMSTable V shows that from the 278 responses that indicated information on migrationto a new ILMS, 251 (90 percent) of the respondents indicated affirmatively, while20 (7 percent) were not considering a migration and seven (nearly 3 percent) had notdecided on this issue. These results do seem to align with the findings of the previoussection that did not indicate high satisfaction with existing ILMS’s. These resultsmay also imply that there is a huge potential for improving the services providedby the ILMS providers and is amply supported by the finding that majority of therespondents chose to migrate to a new ILMS.

In the context of migration choice, Table VI revealed that Koha was undoubtedly themost preferred ILMS solution with about 40 percent responses in its favor. Libsys wasthe second choice with about 23 percent respondents followed by NewGenLib (8 percent),

2

4

6

8

10Mode Mean Median Std. Dev.

0

AUTOLIB

E Gra

ntha

laya

Koha

LIBSOFT

LIBSYS

NEWGENLI

BSLI

MSOUL

VTLS

All res

pons

e

ALICE

Note: n=329

Figure 2.Satisfaction withthe current ILMS

Softwares Responses Mode Mean Median SD

ALICE 21 6 6.61 6 1.96AUTOLIB 8 5 5.75 5.5 1.28E Granthalaya 20 6 5.75 6 2.14Koha 33 8 6.64 7 2.24LIBSOFT 9 5 6.66 7 1.58LIBSYS 70 6 6.02 6 2.17NewGenLib 31 6 6.41 7 2.4SLIM 11 7 6.27 7 1.61SOUL 39 5 5.41 5 2.07VTLS 11 8 6.9 8 2.11Others 76 5 5.28 5 2.45All response 329 6 5.94 6 2.23

Note: n¼ 329

Table IV.Satisfaction withthe current ILMS

Consider to migrate into a new ILMS (n¼ 278) No. of libraries %

Yes 251 90.29No 20 7.19Not decided yet 7 2.52

278 100

Table V.Consider migrating

into a new ILMS

415

OSS solutions inIndian libraries

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

San

Fran

cisc

o A

t 01:

42 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

SOUL (6 percent), and so on. It is also clear that nearly 50 percent of the respondentschose to migrate to an OSS solution. About 8 percent of the respondents did not want tomigrate, probably, indicating that they were satisfied with their current ILMS.

From the total responses of 251, who indicated that they would like to migrate to anew ILMS, 224 responses specifically named the ILMS of their choice. Mapping themigration choices, in terms of proprietary and open source, Table VII, shows that while51 percent of the respondents preferred migrating from proprietary to open sourcesolution and about 38 percent of the respondents indicated migration from oneproprietary to another proprietary solution. It may be worth mentioning here that asmall segment of responses (7 percent) reveal the desire to migrate from an open sourcesolution to another open source solution and about 3 percent of the responses indicatedmigration from an open source solution to a proprietary solution.

Among the responses (251) that indicated a desire to migrate to new ILMS, 241respondents also provided information on their budget and Table VIII reveals the

Consider to migrate into following ILMS (n¼ 278) No. of libraries %

KOHA 109 39.21LIBSYS and LIBSYS 7 63 22.66NewGenLib 23 8.27SOUL 18 6.47E Granthalaya 12 4.32VTLS 10 3.60Alice for window (liberty) 5 1.80Evergreen 2 0.72SLIM 2 0.72Others 7 2.52Do not want to change the software 20 7.19Not decided yet 7 2.52

278 100.00

Table VI.Consider migratinginto which ILMS

P % O %

P 69 38.33 92 51.11O 6 3.33 13 7.22

Notes: n¼ 180. P, proprietary; O, open sourceTable VII.Migration choices

Library budget (in millions INR) withsoftware type choice (n¼ 241)

Opensource % Proprietary % Total

50 million and above 4 57 3 43 710-50 million 19 73 7 27 262.5-10 million 28 54 24 46 520.5-2.5 million 41 58 30 42 71Up to 0.5 million 40 47 45 53 85

132 55 109 45 241

Note: n¼ 241

Table VIII.Library budget andmigration choices

416

LHT32,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

San

Fran

cisc

o A

t 01:

42 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

relationship pattern between the choices made (open source vs proprietary solutions)and the library budget. Figure 3 depicts this relationship quite clearly, indicating thatopen source solutions are preferred over proprietary solutions in most responses (55percent). Interestingly the choice for a proprietary solution is higher in the category oflibraries wherein the budget is o0.5 m. In the category of libraries with budget in therange of 10-50 m, OSS is the clear choice.

Another interesting relationship, as depicted in Figure 4, revealed that most of thelibraries preferred migration of software, irrespective of the collection size. It may beworth noting that the least difference in the choice to migrate or not to migrate wasamong the libraries with collections more than 0.5 million.

5.7 DL and other OSS implementationsThe data collected on DL/Institutional Repository software solutions used by libraryprofessionals, as shown in Table IX, reveals that only 46 percent of the respondentshad their own institutional repositories.

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

50 Millionand above

10 - 50Million

2.5 - 10Million

0.5 - 2.5Million

Upto 0.5Million

Library Budget

Open Source Proprietary

Figure 3.Pattern of library budgets

and migration choices

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

Morethan 0.5Million

0.3 -0.5

Million

0.1 -0.3

Million

50,000-

100,000

20,000-

50,000

5,000 -20,000

upto5,000

Library Collections

Yes (%) No (%)

Figure 4.Pattern of library sizeand migration choices

Do you have your own Institutional repository/digital library (n¼ 345) No. of libraries %

Yes 159 46No 186 54

345 100

Table IX.Institutional repository/

digital libraries software

417

OSS solutions inIndian libraries

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

San

Fran

cisc

o A

t 01:

42 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Further, responses on the software used for creating the institutional repository, asreflected in Table X, revealed that Dspace was the most used institutional repositorysoftware with 102 responses (64 percent) followed by Greenstone with 29 responses (18percent) and Eprints with nine responses (6 percent). About 19 responses (12 percent)indicated use of other software solutions like Resourcespace, Nithya, LIDAS, etc.

The collected data on library software solutions other than ILMS and DL, datarevealed that many areas in the library had the potential for OSS implementation.Table XI shows that ERM Systems (201 responses), Content Management System (195responses), Document Management System for digitization (173 responses), Remoteauthentication and login (138 responses) and Federated Search engine (99 responses)were the potential areas for OSS implementation in the library.

Table XII reveals that 247 (72 percent) responses indicated cost as a majoradvantage in adopting OSS, while 243 (71 percent) respondents indicated sharing andcollaborative development as an advantage, 127 indicated freedom from vendor lock-inand 78 indicated enhanced security as the major advantages. The other notableadvantages mentioned by respondents were frequent updates and easy customizationof OSS.

On the issue of barriers to OSS, data, as shown in Table XIII, 206 (more than60 percent) respondents had expressed concern on getting professional support, 154respondents were worried about availability of proper documentation and training,132 respondents indicated migration from existing systems as a major concern and66 respondents indicated limitation in software features. The other important barrierslisted by the respondents included life span of the solution, leadership to drive thesolution, technical skill set needed to implement and awareness of the available OSS.

Institutional repository/Digital library software using (n¼ 159) No. of libraries %

Dspace 102 64Greenstone 29 18Eprints 9 6Others 19 12

Table X.Libraries usinginstitutional repository/digital library software

Potential areas (n¼ 336) No. of responses %

Electronic resource management systems 201 60Content management system (web site creation) 195 58Document management system for digitization 173 51Remote login for remote access to subscribed e-resources 138 41Federated search engine 99 29

Table XI.Potential areas foradoption of OSS

Advantages (n¼ 344) No. of responses %

Cost advantage 247 72Sharing and collaborative development is future 243 71Avoid vendor lock in 127 37Enhanced security 78 23

Table XII.Major advantage of OSS

418

LHT32,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

San

Fran

cisc

o A

t 01:

42 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

On the mode of professional support desired, the data collected from the respondents,indicated as shown in Table XIV, that most of the library professionals, nearly 40percent of them, preferred local hosting followed by consortia model followed by Cloudhosting and SAAS.

When information on the preferred mode of training was sought, responses, asshown in Table XV, revealed that most of the library professionals (nearly 70 percent ofthem) indicated hands on workshop as their most preferred choice, followed by onsitetraining and technical guide/handbook.

6. ConclusionIn a recent survey on OSS (The Wall Street Journal, 2013) it was found that OSS waspreferred over proprietary solutions as “increasingly, enterprises see it as leadinginnovation, delivering higher quality and driving growth rather than being just a freeor low-cost alternative.” Similar indications in the ILMS sector are evident and studiesindicate strong positive perception and inclination toward adoption of OSS (Rafiq,2009). The study of Kiriyanant (2012) also indicated the preferred choice of OSS ILMSover current proprietary solutions in Thailand.

The present study though focussed toward academic library sector, indicates thatmost of the Indian libraries do have ILMS software solutions implemented. While thereare a very high percentage of libraries that use ILMS solutions, more than half of thelibraries do not have a DL software solution in place.

If you plan to take professional vendor support for adopting OSS, which businessmodel will you prefer? (n¼ 332)

No. ofresponses %

Local hosting (Software installed onsite. Server required) 127 38Consortia model for resource sharing (low adoption cost; union catalog; better control) 99 30Cloud hosting (Onsite server not required since application is hosted remotely withhigh availability. Internet connectivity required) 67 20SAAS (software as a service is a subscription model with low upfront cost and lowmaintenance. Internet required) 39 12

Table XIV.Mode of professional

vendor support

What mode of training would be helpful/encourage your libraryto adopt open source software? (n¼ 344) No. of responses %

Hands on workshop 234 68Onsite training 148 43Technical guide/handbook 127 37e-Learning 114 33Part of course curriculum 67 19

Table XV.Preferred mode of training

Barriers (n¼ 339) No. of responses %

Professional support 206 61Availability of proper documentation and training 154 45Migration from existing system 132 39Software features 66 19

Table XIII.Major barriers to

OSS implementation

419

OSS solutions inIndian libraries

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

San

Fran

cisc

o A

t 01:

42 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

In the OSS ILMS category, Koha stands out with an impressive presence in terms ofnumbers and satisfaction levels of the users. Koha was also rated as the most preferredILMS among the ones that indicated the choice of ILMS migration. However, there areindications in the study that there is ample scope for improving satisfaction levels ofexisting ILMS offerings in India. This may be one of the reasons for the overwhelmingindication from Indian libraries to migrate to new ILMS. In fact the study also indicates thatthere exists interest in migration from proprietary solutions to other proprietary solutions.

In the OSS DL category, Dspace implementations stood out with more than other allother alternatives put together. It is evident from this study that in addition to theILMS and DL, Electronic Resource Management (ERM), Content Management (CM),Document Management (DM), Remote Login (RL) and Federated Search (FS) arepotential areas for OSS implementation in Indian libraries. It is interesting the numberof responses that indicated interest in ERM, CM and DM were more than totalresponses that were favorable to Institutional Repository/DL implementation. Thisprobably indicates the widespread interest and enthusiasm among the libraryprofessionals in India to explore OSS in offering many new library services.

In addition to cost advantage, collaborative development and sharing and freedomfrom vendor lock in are some of the major advantages of OSS implementation as far asIndian libraries are concerned. Among the concerns, professional support anddocumentation and training need to be take into account while implementing OSSsolutions in India. The study also clearly indicates the comfort in having locally hostedsolutions among the library professionals along with their preference for hands-onworkshop for getting trained on OSS solutions.

Among the other findings that this study brings out, there is a clear indication ofinterest and enthusiasm among Indian library professionals in implementing OSSsolutions. The future of OSS for libraries in India may exist in a variety of areas otherthan just the ILMS and DL.

References

Balnaves, E. (2008), “Open source library management systems: a multidimensional evaluation”,Australian Academic & Research Libraries, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 1-13.

Breeding, M. (2010), “Perceptions 2010: an international survey of library automation”, availableat: www.librarytechnology.org/perceptions2010.pl (accessed 18 February 2013).

Breeding, M. (2011), “Perceptions 2011: an international survey of library automation”, availableat: www.librarytechnology.org/perceptions2011.pl (accessed 18 February 2013).

Breeding, M. (2012), “Automation marketplace 2012: agents of change – the digital shift”,available at: www.thedigitalshift.com/2012/03/ils/automation-marketplace-2012-agents-of-change/ (accessed 19 February 1013).

Chudnov, D. (1999), “Open source software: the future of library systems?”, Library Journal,Vol. 124 No. 13, pp. 40-43.

Corrado, E.M. (2005), “The importance of open access, open source, and open standardsfor libraries”, Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, Vol. 42, available at:www.istl.org/05-spring/article2.html (accessed 29 March 2013).

Davidson, J. (2008), “OSS spending trends in education”, Technology Innovation Management Review,The Open Source Business Resource, Talent First Network, Ottawa, pp. 5-7, available at: http://timreview.ca/sites/default/files/Issue_PDF/august08_osbr.pdf (accessed 12 February 2013).

Driver, M. (2012), Understand the Challenges of Open Source Software, Gartner Inc., Connecticut,pp. 1-6, available at: www.gartner.com/id¼ 2157915 (accessed 19 March 2013).

420

LHT32,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

San

Fran

cisc

o A

t 01:

42 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Erlich, Z. and Aviv, R. (2007), “Open source software: strength and weakness”, in Amant, K.S. andStill, B. (Eds), Handbook of Research on Open Source Software: Technological, Economic,and Social Perspectives, IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp. 39-51.

Frumkin, J. (2002), “Guest editorial: balancing the playing field”, Information Technology andLibraries, Vol 21 No. 1, p. 2.

Goh, D.H.-L., Alton, C., Davina, A.K., Emily, B.-H.K., Eric, B.-T.M. and Maple, W.-M.N. (2006),“A checklist for evaluating open source digital library software”, Online InformationReview, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 360-379.

Jaffe, L.D. and Careaga, G. (2007), “Standing up for open source”, Library Philosophy and Practice,available at: www.webpages.uidaho.edu/Bmbolin/jaffe-careaga.htm (accessed 28 January2013).

Jose, S. (2007), “Adoption of open source digital library software packages: a survey”, availableat: http://eprints.rclis.org/8976/1/Sanjojose.pdf (accessed 18 February 2013).

Kalliamvakou, E. (2007), “Open source software basics: an overview of a revolutionary researchcontext”, in Lytras, M.D. and Naeve, A. (Eds), Open Source for Knowledge and LearningManagement, IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp. 1-15.

Kiriyanant, P. (2012), Survey of Open Source Integrated Library System in Thai University Librariesin Bangkok and Pathumthani, The Center for Southeast Asian Studies Library, Kyoto.

Krishnamurthy, M. (2008), “Open access, open source and digital libraries: a current trend inuniversity libraries around the world”, Program: Electronic Library and InformationSystems, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 48-55.

Krist, K. (2009), “Natural partners: libraries and open source initiatives”, available at: http://eprints.rclis.org/13724/ (accessed 9 February 2013).

Mittal, R. and Mahesh, G. (2008), “Digital libraries and repositories in India: an evaluative study”,Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 286-302.

Morgan, E.L. (2002), “Possibilities for open source software in libraries”, Information Technologyand Libraries, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 12-16.

Muir, S.P. (2005), “An introduction to the open source software issue”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 23No. 4, pp. 465-468.

Muller, T. (2011), “How to choose a free and open source integrated library system”, OCLCSystems & Services, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 57-78.

Nagy, D., Yassin, A.M. and Bhattacherjee, A. (2010), “Organizational adoption of opensource software: barriers and remedies”, Communication of the AMC, Vol. 53 No. 3,pp. 148-151.

National Knowledge Commission (2009), “Baseline report on libraries”, Report to the nation,available at: www.knowledgecommission.gov.in/downloads/baseline/libraries.pdf(accessed 2 February 2013).

Payne, A. and Singh, V. (2010), “Open source software use in libraries”, Library Review, Vol. 59No. 9, pp. 708-717.

Poulter, A. (2010), “Open source in libraries: an introduction and overview”, Library Review,Vol. 59 No. 9, pp. 655-661.

Rafiq, M. (2009), “LIS community’s perceptions towards open source software adoption inlibraries”, The International Information & Library Review, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 137-145.

Rafiq, M. and Ameen, K. (2009), “Issues and lessons learned in open source software adoption inPakistani libraries”, Electronic Library, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 601-610.

Riewe, L.M. (2008), Survey of Open Source Integrated Library Systems, San Jose State University,San Jose, CA, available at: http://users.sfo.com/Blmr/ils-survey/080831-paper-Riewe.pdf(accessed 12 March 2012).

421

OSS solutions inIndian libraries

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

San

Fran

cisc

o A

t 01:

42 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Schlumpf, P. (1999), “Open source library systems”, Library Computing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 323-336.

Singh, M. and Sanaman, G. (2012), “Open source integrated library management systems:comparative analysis of Koha and NewGenLib”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 30 No. 6,pp. 809-832.

Singh, V. (2013), “Experiences of migrating to an open – source integrated library system”,Information Technology & Libraries, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 36-53.

Tennant, R. (2003), “Open source goes mainstream”, Library Journal, Vol. 128 No. 13, pp. 30-35.

The Wall Street Journal (2013), “Seventh annual future of open source survey results show culture,quality and growth driving an open revolution”, The Wall Street Journal, 17 April, availableat: http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130417-911721.html (accessed 20 May 2013).

Vasupongayya, S., Keawneam, K., Sengloilaun, K. and Emmawat, P. (2011), “Open source librarymanagement system software: a review”, World Academy of Science, Engineering andTechnology, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 973-978.

Wan, G. (2007), “An open source alternative for libraries”, Chinese Librarianship: AnInternational Electronic Journal, Vol. 23, available at: www.iclc.us/cliej/cl23wan.htm(accessed 18 January 2013).

Warr, H. and Hangsing, P. (2009), “Open source digital library software: a literature review”,Preservation and Conservation of Information Resources in Information Society: Issues,Challenges and Trends 2009 Proceedings of the National Seminar in Manipur University,Imphal, pp. 238-258.

Further reading

Osslabs.biz (2013), “Koha customer”, available at: www.osslabs.biz/customers/koha (accessed 9September 2013).

Researcher.sfu.ca (2013), “About researcher”, available at: http://researcher.sfu.ca/ (accessed 12September 2013).

About the authors

Dr Anilkumar Hanumappa has a Doctoral Degree in Library and Information Science from theMS University of Baroda, and the Master’s and Bachelor’s Degree in Library and InformationScience from Bangalore University. He was invited under the prestigious International VisitorProgram of the Department of State, USA in June 2001. He is the recipient of Asian ProfessionalAward (2011) by Special Libraries Association (SLA), USA and Best Librarian Award (2008) byManagement and Libraries Network (MANLIBNET), India. Presently, he is working as Librarianand Head NICMAN, Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Ahmedabad. Dr AnilkumarHanumappa is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: anilkumar@iimahd.ernet.in

Mallikarjun Dora is presently working as a Professional Assistant at Vikram Sarabhai LibraryIIM, Ahmedabad. Prior to this he has worked with IIM, Kozhikode and Koustav Business School,Bhubaneswar. He has ten research papers on his credit published in international and nationaljournals and conferences. He has received best paper award at MANLBINET Conference, IIMIndore, 2012. He has qualified UGC NET-JRF (library and information science) in 2005.

Viral Navik is working as a Professional Assistant at Vikram Sarabhai Library, IIM,Ahmedabad. Prior to this he had work as a Librarian at Navrachana Higher Secondary School,Vadodara, India. He holds Master’s Degree in Library and Information Science from the IGNOUUniversity. He has published and presented paper in two international conference.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

422

LHT32,3

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Cal

ifor

nia

San

Fran

cisc

o A

t 01:

42 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)