Technological Innovations in Library Resource Circulation: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Koha, LibSys, and SOUL as Automated Library Management Systems – Volume 10 Issue 5

This chapter examines technological innovations in library resource circulation with a focused comparative evaluation of three widely used Integrated Library Management Systems (ILMS): Koha (open-source), LibSys (proprietary/enterprise), and SOUL (SOftware for University Libraries). Emphasizing circulation functions—membership management, check-in/check-out workflows, renewals, reservations, fines/fees, interlibrary loans (ILL), RFID/SIP/NCIP support, reporting, and user-facing discovery services—the chapter integrates literature review, technical feature analysis, usability assessment, implementation challenges, and empirically grounded recommendations (Madhusudhan, 2020; Patel & Shah, 2022). Prior studies highlight the growing role of automation in enhancing efficiency, reducing human error, and improving patron satisfaction (Gaur & Tripathi, 2019; Sharma & Singh, 2018). By systematically comparing Koha, LibSys, and SOUL, this chapter provides librarians, administrators, and policymakers with a clear and practically useful roadmap for selecting and optimising an ILMS to improve circulation efficiency, patron satisfaction, and long-term cost-effectiveness (INFLIBNET, 2021; Kumar & Verma, 2021).

The comparative evaluation of Koha, LibSys, and SOUL as automated library management systems demonstrates that while each software fulfills the essential requirements of circulation management, their effectiveness varies depending on institutional needs and resources. Koha, with its open-source foundation, offers remarkable flexibility, cost efficiency, and adaptability to evolving technologies, though it requires continuous technical support. LibSys provides robust, enterprise-level solutions with strong vendor support, ensuring reliability and efficiency, but it demands significant financial investment. SOUL, developed by INFLIBNET, stands out as an affordable option aligned with Indian academic library policies, though it lags behind in terms of modern design and advanced interoperability. Overall, the study highlights that no single system is universally superior. Instead, the suitability of an ILMS depends on contextual factors such as budget, technical expertise, scale of operations, and user expectations. Institutions must weigh the trade-offs between cost, customisation, usability, and support before adopting a system. Importantly, the findings reaffirm the role of automated circulation systems as catalysts for improved efficiency, user satisfaction, and digital transformation in libraries. By aligning system selection with institutional priorities and continuously assessing performance, libraries can ensure that technology effectively supports their mission of knowledge dissemination and academic growth.

Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (2006). Research in education (10th ed.). Pearson. Breeding, M. (2015). Library services platforms: A maturing genre of products. Computers in Libraries, 35(3), 16–19. Breeding, M. (2017). Library technology guides: Comparative analysis of library automation systems. Library Technology Guides. https://librarytechnology.org Cholin, V. S. (2005). Study of the application of information technology for effective access to resources in Indian university libraries. The International Information & Library Review, 37(3), 189–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572317.2005.10762677 Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. Ghosh, S. B., & Das, A. K. (2006). Open source integrated library management systems: Comparative analysis of Koha and NewGenLib. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 53(1), 29–41. IFLA. (2012). RFID in libraries: A recommended good practice. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. Retrieved from https://www.ifla.org INFLIBNET Centre. (2019). SOUL 3.0: Software for university libraries – User manual. Gandhinagar: INFLIBNET Centre. INFLIBNET Centre. (2019). SOUL 3.0: Software for university libraries – User manual. Gandhinagar: INFLIBNET Centre. Jayaprasad, P. N. (2015). Adoption of SOUL in Indian academic libraries: A case study of university libraries in Kerala. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 35(3), 208–214. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.35.3.8547 Kaur, K., & Rani, S. (2008). Comparative features of Koha, LibSys, and SOUL: A study of selected university libraries in India. Library Progress (International), 28(2), 125–138. Khan, A., & Bhatti, R. (2017). Application of open-source integrated library systems in academic libraries: A survey of Pakistani universities. Program, 51(3), 262–282. https://doi.org/10.1108/PROG-12-2016-0094 Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques (2nd ed.). New Age International. Krishnamurthy, M. (2012). Integrated library management systems: Evolution and trends in India. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 59(3), 148–154. LibSys Ltd. (2020). LibSys 10 – Integrated library system: Product brochure. New Delhi: LibSys Ltd. LibSys Ltd. (2020). LibSys 10 – Integrated library system: Product brochure. New Delhi: LibSys Ltd. Madhusudhan, M. (2010). RFID technology implementation in two university libraries in India: A case study. Program, 44(3), 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1108/00330331011064272 Muneja, M. S. (2018). Evaluation of Koha and Evergreen open-source ILS in supporting library functions. Library Hi Tech News, 35(10), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHTN-08-2018-0056 Oyewole, O., Adetimirin, A. E., & Olorunsola, R. (2017). Comparative analysis of Koha and proprietary integrated library systems in Nigerian university libraries. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1511, 1–14. Parabhoi, L., & Naidu, G. T. (2019). Implementation of SOUL software in university libraries of Odisha: A case analysis. Journal of Indian Library Association, 55(2), 88–97. Patra, A., & Pani, S. (2015). User satisfaction in Koha implementation: A case study of engineering college libraries in Odisha. PEARL – A Journal of Library and Information Science, 9(2), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.5958/0975-6922.2015.00018.5 Reddy, K. M., & Kumbar, B. D. (2017). Automation in Indian university libraries: Issues and challenges with SOUL. International Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology, 7(1), 41–46. Reddy, V., & Rao, P. N. (2018). RFID-enabled circulation services in university libraries: An Indian experience. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 38(1), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.38.1.11601 Singh, J., & Sanaman, G. (2012). Open source integrated library management systems: Comparative analysis of Koha and ABCD. The Electronic Library, 30(6), 809–832. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640471211282120