Research Article
Evaluation of Integrated
Library System (ILS) Use in University Libraries in Nigeria: An Empirical Study
of Adoption, Performance, Achievements, and Shortcomings
Saturday U. Omeluzor, Ph.D.
Systems Librarian
Library Department
Federal University of
Petroleum Resources Effurun
Delta State, Nigeria.
Email: omeluzor.saturday@fupre.edu.ng
Received: 8 July 2019 Accepted: 2 Oct. 2020
2020 Omeluzor. This
is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip29604
Abstract
Objective - The aim of this study was to evaluate Integrated Library System (ILS)
use in university libraries in Nigeria in terms of their adoption, performance,
achievements, and shortcomings and to propose a rigorous model for ongoing
evaluation based on use of candidate variables (CVs) derived from the approach
used by Hamilton and Chervany (1981) and from
evaluation criteria suggested by Farajpahlou (1999,
2002).
Methods - The
study adopted a descriptive survey design. Nigeria is made up of six
geo-political zones including: North-East (NE), North-West (NW), North-Central
(NC), South-South (SS), South-East (SE), and South-West (SW). The population
for this study comprised Systems/IT and E-librarians in the university
libraries from all six of the geo-political zones of Nigeria. Because of the
large number of universities in each of the zones in Nigeria, a convenience
sampling method was used to select six universities representing federal,
state, and private institutions from each of the six geo-political zones of
Nigeria. A purposive sampling method was used to select the Systems/IT and
E-librarians who were directly in charge of ILS in their various libraries.
Therefore, the sample for this study was made up of 36 Systems/IT and
E-librarians from the 36 selected universities in Nigeria. The instrument used
to elicit responses from the respondents was an online questionnaire and was
distributed through the respondents’ email boxes and WhatsApp. The
questionnaire administration received a 100% response rate.
Results -
Findings revealed that university libraries in Nigeria have made remarkable
progress in the adoption and use of ILS for library services. The findings also
showed that much has been achieved in the use of ILS in library services.
Evidence in the study indicated that the performance of the ILS adopted in the
selected university libraries in the area of data entry and currency, accuracy,
reliability, completeness, flexibility, ease of use, and timeliness was
encouraging.
Conclusions - Adoption and use of ILS in libraries is changing the
way libraries deliver services to their patrons. Traditional methods of service
delivery are different from the expectations of the 21st century
library patrons. The transformation seen in the university libraries in Nigeria
using ILS was tremendous and is changing the narratives of the past. However,
several shortcomings still exist in the adoption and use of ILS in university
libraries in Nigeria. Overcoming some of the limitations would require a
conscious effort and decisiveness to ensure that librarians and library patrons
enjoy the best services that ILS can offer. ILS developers should consider the
dynamic needs of libraries and their patrons and incorporate specific candidate
variables (CVs) in their ILS designs to enhance the quality of the services
being offered to the library patrons.
Introduction
“Library and information science occupies a vantage position in the educational sector and
plays a strategic role in national growth and development” (Shekarau, 2014).
University libraries today are adopting Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs) to deliver information to their patrons. ICTs are playing a
pivotal role in the way and manner in which information is being handled in the
library. Before the use of ICT tools in libraries, traditional methods were
employed to deliver most library services. Traditional library processes have
been judged as unable to respond quickly enough in a technologically driven
environment (Ayiah & Kumah,
2011). With a steady growth in library collections for various programs that
are offered in the university, and the decentralization of library activities,
it is essential to use an integrated library system that responds quickly to
the needs of librarians and library patrons (Omeluzor,
Adara, Madukoma, Bamidele
& Umahi, 2012).
An
ILS has been defined as “a series of
interconnected operations that streamline input and retrieval of information
for both information professionals and researchers” (Lucidea.com, n.d.). Since
the concept of an ILS was first introduced by Harder in 1936, it has been
developed and modified to suit different ideas and purposes in different
sectors of the economy, for example, banking, marketing, and aviation among
others. In the library, the term ILS has been used interchangeably for both
mechanization and automation (Riaz, 1992). Singh (2013) defined library automation as the
computerization of library records and functions, using computer hardware and
software for tasks that may require a lot of paperwork and staff time. Singh
(2013) noted that ILS is the use of computers, and associated technology, to do
exactly what has been traditionally done in libraries with the justification of
reducing cost or increasing performance. ILS enables adequate monitoring,
controlling, service delivery, access to bibliographic records, collaboration
among libraries, and enhanced access to information materials irrespective of patrons’
geographical locations (Omeluzor & Oyovwe-Tinuoye, 2016).
University libraries
in Nigeria and other countries have increasingly used new tools such as ILS and
methods for delivering information services to their patrons since the
beginning of the 21st century (Sharma, 2009; Oladokun & Kolawole, 2018).
However, in spite of the advances made in ILS adoption by Nigeria libraries, Ani
(2007), Aguolu and Aguolu (2006) argued that libraries in
Nigeria have been slow to adopt this level of automation and that most academic
and research libraries in Nigeria had not computerized any of their functions.
Studies such as Osaniyi (2010) and Omeluzor, et al.
(2012) have also shown that some of the ILS adopted in Nigeria libraries are
not performing optimally, impacting negatively on the libraries’ achievements.
It is against this backdrop that it becomes crucial to evaluate ILS adoption, performance, achievements, and shortcomings in
Nigeria university libraries.
Although there have been many studies conducted that identify
issues related to ILS in Nigeria university libraries, none have used a
rigorous model for the evaluation. The use of appropriate candidate variables
(CVs) and evaluation
criteria may provide evidence of the performance of
ILS that could support the decision for its adoption in library services. This
study focusing on ILS adoption, performance, achievements, and shortcomings
adapted Hamilton and Chervany’s (1981) CVs approach
to identify the performance features of ILS used in Nigeria university
libraries.
Background
The use of ILS to automate or streamline library
management, processes, and services is not a new phenomenon in developed
countries. In developing countries, and especially Nigeria, ILS is gradually
gaining momentum but not without some shortcomings. Over the last decade, a
considerable number of ILS have been developed and deployed in libraries to
facilitate easier access to information. In Nigeria, efforts were made to adopt
and use ILS in library services. Since the 1990s, when the World Bank in 1990
deployed management information system in some selected federal universities to
improve institutional capacities of Nigeria universities, a considerable number
of ILS have been developed and deployed in Nigeria university libraries to ease
access to information. The intervention by the World Bank to deploy management
information system included the deployment of unified ILS known as TINLIB for
library automation. In addition, some federal university libraries in Nigeria,
such as the University of Ibadan and University of Nigeria Nsukka Enugu Centre,
among others, had adopted CD/ISIS, X-LIB, LIB+, GLASS, and Alice for Windows to
provide library services. Similarly, several private university libraries have
also adopted ILS for library services. For example, Bowen University, Iwo
(BUI), and Babcock University (BU) libraries had at different times adopted
Koha ILS for library services.
University libraries in Nigeria have adopted both
proprietary and open source ILS. Proprietary ILS products have been available
for many years and are characterized by expensive customized coding; these
products have remained the dominant approach used for library automation (Uzomba et al,
2015). In contrast to proprietary ILS products, open source software (OSS) ILS
products provide the original source code used in creating it, as well as the
right of redistribution, which provides users the freedom to modify and
customize them in order to suit one’s own purposes. Conversely, a closed
proprietary system limits the way the library can access the underlying data
(Breeding, 2009). OSS is freely developed for the enhancement of routine
library activities. OSS is available for anyone to have; not only is the
software free, but it is also free for anyone to run, copy, distribute, study, change,
improve, modify, and share for any purpose, thus enabling libraries to have
greater control over their working environments (Kumar & Jasimudeen, 2012). Whether the libraries have adopted
either proprietary or open source ILS in Nigeria university libraries, there is
evidence in the literature that challenges facing the adoption of ILS in
Nigeria university libraries abound. However, few if any studies have focused
on the adoption, achievements, performance, and shortcomings of ILS, which this
present study tries to accomplish. The researcher believes that this study will
contribute in developing a model for the evaluation of the adoption,
achievements, performance, and shortcomings of ILS using the already proposed
model by Hamilton and Chervany (1981) together with Farajpahlou’s (1999, 2002) evaluation criteria for the
evaluation of ILS in university libraries across the world. There are already
numerous studies on the prospects, performance, successes and challenges of ILS
adoption and use in university libraries, especially in developing nations (Osaniyi, 2010; Omeluzor,
et al, 2012; Breeding, 2009; Uzomba, et al, 2015; Atua-Ntow, 2016). However, none of these studies have
revealed the use of Hamilton and Chervany (1981) CVs to
evaluate the capability of ILS in library services.
Aims
This study is aimed at designing a model that would be
fundamental for evaluating the adoption, performance, achievements, and
shortcomings of ILS in university libraries. It is guided by the following
objectives, to:
1. Evaluate the extent of ILS adoption in Nigeria
university libraries.
2. Evaluate the achievements made so far with ILS in
Nigeria university libraries.
3. Evaluate the performance of ILS in library services in
Nigeria university libraries.
4. Evaluate the shortcomings of ILS in Nigeria university
libraries.
Literature
Review
Evaluating ILS in Nigeria University Libraries
Hamilton and Chervany (1981)
proposed an approach for the evaluation of management information systems (MIS)
that involved the use of candidate variables (CVs) such as: data currency,
accuracy, reliability and completeness, system flexibility, ease of use,
response time, and turnaround time. Farajpahlou
(1999) proposed the use of specific criteria for assessing the success of ILS.
These criteria were in four broad categories including: management of the
system, usage of the system, technicalities of the system, and boundary issues.
Each of the criteria is found to be useful in this present study as together
they present the basis for identifying the achievements, performance, and
shortcomings of ILS in university libraries. Farajpahlou
(2002) further emphasized that a successful automated library system would
require pre-conditions such as a well-prepared automation plan and
implementation program. Consistent evaluation of ILS is important to identify
areas of improvement for effective services. Hill and Patterson (2013) noted
that assessment could present challenges but is still worthwhile to undertake
if the aim is to create and add value to that which is being assessed.
Similarly, Okpokwasili and Blakes (2014) believe that
assessments of ILS, library services, and resources need to be carried out on a
continuous basis to ensure that they remain relevant to the needs of their
patrons and stakeholders.
Omeluzor and Oyovwe-Tinuoye (2016) assessed the
adoption and use of ILS for library services in university libraries in Edo and
Delta States. A section of the instrument used for the study elicited
information on the use, achievement, effectiveness, and challenges
of ILS in academic libraries in the two states. Findings in the study revealed
that the automation software adopted in some of the university libraries were
effective for accessing books, journals, and other library materials, as well
as for bibliographic search and retrieval. Although the study presented some
issues about use, achievement, effectiveness, and challenges, it did not focus
on Hamilton and Chervany’s
(1981) CVs or Farajpahlou’s (1999, 2002) criteria,
which is a gap that this present study tries to bridge. Some studies (Akpokodje & Akpokodje, 2015; Ojedokun, Olla & Adigun, 2016) have shown one or two of
the variables, such as adoption, achievements, performance or shortcomings.
Surprisingly, none of these studies has tried to integrate Hamilton and Chervany’s (1981) CVs which could have provided a clearer
view of the performance and perhaps records of achievements and shortcomings of
ILS in library services. A deliberate study, with a focus on CVs, could reveal
some underlying attributes of ILS and the reasons for its adoption in library
services.
Adoption of ILS in Nigeria University Libraries
Libraries in Nigeria have had their share of problems
in the adoption of ILS. For example, the World Bank in collaboration with the
National Universities Commission (NUC) in 1990 supported 20 federal
universities in Nigeria with TINLIB automation software among other ICT tools
for 20 participating libraries. The effort did not yield expected results since
Sani and Tiamiyu (2005) in their evaluation of
automated services in Nigerian universities found that the system fell short of
some of the evaluation criteria and CVs proposed by Hamilton and Chervany (1981) and Farajpahlou
(1999, 2002). Sani and Tiamiyu (2005) observed that
the state of automated library services in the universities that were visited
was haphazard, with the situation in state and private universities being
particularly pathetic. This scenario may not be unconnected to lack of
evaluation on the achievements, performance, and shortcomings of the ILS before
adoption. Some laudable initiatives in the adoption of ILS for library services
in Nigeria have failed in the last two decades due to lack of evaluation (Okiy, 1998; Nok, 2006; Osaniyi, 2010; Adegbore, 2010; Omeluzor et al., 2012;
Mbakwe & Ibegbulam,
2014). Aguolu,
et al. (2006) reported the non-computerization of library functions in Nigeria
university libraries. A study by Oladokun and
Kolawole (2018) revealed that 35 libraries across the six geo-political zones
of Nigeria had adopted Koha open source software. Findings in that study
revealed that 13 (36%) of the respondents indicated lack of support from their
institutions as a major reason for non-adoption of Koha in their libraries.
Shortcomings of ILS in Nigeria University Libraries
On the shortcomings of ILS in Nigeria university
libraries, most of the studies focus on the challenges of the automation
process, such as: technical problems, problems with retrospective conversion,
non-availability of the software and vendors’ attitudes, inadequate funding,
lack of skill, inadequate ICT facilities, power supply, and others (Agboola, 2000; Sani & Tiamiyu,
2005; Osaniyi, 2010; Omeluzor, et
al., 2012; Mbakwe
& Ibegbula, 2014). No single research study has
been conducted showing a step by step approach on the evaluation, performance,
achievement, and shortcomings of ILS as portrayed in Figure 1, which perhaps
would have shown evidence and criteria for its adoption in libraries. The
pitfalls of adopting one ILS and switching over to another could perhaps be
avoided if libraries adopt Hamilton and Chervany’s CV
(1981) and even Farajpahlou’s (1999, 2002) evaluation
criteria before adoption of ILS.
The model in Figure 1 proposes the evaluation of the
performance, achievement, and shortcomings of ILS before adoption. The model is
an expansion of Hamilton and Chervany CVs who in 1981
proposed evaluating only performance and achievement of MIS, including:
accuracy, reliability, completeness, flexibility, ease of use, and timeliness
excluding shortcomings. Emphasis in the model proposed by Hamilton and Chervany (1981) is primarily on the performance of information
systems in the delivery of services. An evaluation of the shortcomings of ILS
as part of evaluation criteria would provide insights, helpful when making
decisions about the adoption of ILS in university libraries in the future.
Figure
1
A
model for the evaluation of ILS in a university library
Methods
Research
Approach
The study adopted a descriptive survey design. The
adoption of descriptive survey design provides the researcher the opportunity
of using data collected for this study for ILS evaluation using CVs in Nigeria
University Libraries. According to Nworgu (2006) a descriptive survey design describes a
condition or phenomenon as it exists naturally without manipulation.
Population
Nigeria is made up of six geo-political zones
including: North-East (NE), North-West (NW), North-Central (NC), South-South
(SS), South-East (SE), and South-West (SW). The population of this study
comprised Systems/IT and E-librarians in the university libraries from all six
geo-political zones of Nigeria. Since the aim of this study was to evaluate
ILS, a purposive sampling method was used to select the Systems/IT and
E-librarians who are directly in-charge of ILS in their respective libraries.
Because of the large number of universities in each of the zones in Nigeria, a
convenience sampling method was used to select six universities, comprised of
federal, state, and private universities, from each of the six geo-political
zones of Nigeria, offering a good representative sample to achieve the purpose
of this study. Therefore, the sample for this study is made up of 36 Systems/IT
and E-librarians from the 36 selected universities in Nigeria as shown in Table
1.
Research
Instrument Development
Based on the theoretical framework identified in the
previous studies described above, the researcher developed a structured online
questionnaire using a Google Online Form with five sections (see Appendix A) to provide answers to
the questions raised on the evaluation of the adoption, performance,
achievements, and shortcomings of ILS in Nigeria university libraries. Sections
3 and 5 of the instrument were adopted from Omeluzor et al. (2012) and Omeluzor
& Oyovwe-Tinuoye (2016). The study by Omeluzor et al. (2012) reported the implementation of Koha
ILS at Babcock University Library and the elements adopted are those that
reveal the achievements that were made with ILS such as: “provide on-the-spot
access to resources,” “enable sharing of resources with other libraries,”
“enable online cataloguing” and “provide access to books and external sources”
(p. 218) that are relevant in this present study. On the other hand, Omeluzor and Oyovwe-Tinuoye
(2016) assessed the adoption and use of ILS in academic libraries in Edo State
and Delta State, Nigeria. The elements adopted from that study are those that
show the shortcomings of adopting ILS such as: “inadequate training and
technical knowhow for librarians,” “cost of implementation,” and “inadequate
skilled personnel”. The elements presented in both studies are limited to one
private university library and academic libraries in Edo and Delta States.
Using those elements in this present study provides more insight on how they
affect the overall achievement and performance on the varied ILS adopted in
Nigeria university libraries.
Section 4 of the instrument was adopted from Hamilton
and Chervany (1981) CVs. The researcher found the CVs
proposed in Hamilton and Chervany (1981) for the
evaluation of MIS to be relevant in this present study, as it reveals the
variables that should be considered for inclusion in the evaluation of ILS in
the university library. The CVs that were identified from previous research
studies as being relevant to the evaluation of ILS in library settings are:
data entry and currency, accuracy, reliability, completeness, flexibility, ease
of use, and timeliness. A 4-scale measuring instrument was used for sections 4
and 5 with 4 being the highest and 1 being the lowest.
Distribution and
Data Collection
Before the administration of the questionnaire to the
intended respondents, a pre-test was conducted to assess the reliability of the
instrument on ten Systems/IT and E-Librarians working in public libraries, who
were not part of the study. The 10 responses were retrieved and analysed using
Cronbach Alpha correlation co-efficient at 0.50 level of acceptance which gave
a result of r =0.85. This indicates that the instrument is reliable and
appropriate for data collection for this study since the test result is above
the acceptance point of 0.50. Furthermore, the instrument was also examined by
an ILS researcher to ensure content and construct validity. The questionnaire
was then emailed to some of the respondents. Emailing the respondents directly
eliminated the possibility of receiving responses from unintended respondents.
However, because the researcher could not access all the respondents via email,
the use of Nigeria Library Association (NLA) Online Forum, NLA IT Section and
WhatsApp group became unavoidable. The use of the platforms was found by the
researcher as an alternative to contact those respondents that could not be
reached, since all of them are registered members. The responses received
through those platforms were carefully sifted to eliminate double response from
those respondents that were earlier contacted via email as well as from
non-systems librarians. The Google response page was also very helpful in
catching duplicate responses or any two respondents from the same university.
The use of those platforms helped the researcher receive 100% of the responses
needed to reach the goals of this study. The instrument elicited information on
the ILS adopted, its achievements, performance level, and shortcomings. Data
collected were analyzed using Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS) version 7.0 and results are presented in frequency
table, mean, standard deviation, chart, and percentage for clarity and
understanding. In Tables 2 and 3 the mean scores are rated as follows: Mean is
0.1 to 1.9 = very low, 2.0 to 2.4 = low, 2.5 to 2.9 = high, 3.0 and above = very
high.
Results
Demographic
Information of the Respondents
Results show that 47% of the respondents with the role
of Systems/IT and E-Librarians in university libraries in Nigeria are female
and 53% are male. The majority of the respondents (48%) have worked between
6-10 years. Another 24% of the respondents have worked between 1-5 years, and
20% of the respondents have worked between 11-15 years. Results also shows that
a low percentage (8%) of the respondents have worked for 16 years or longer.
Table
1a
State of ILS Adoption in
University Libraries
|
University |
ILS currently in use |
ILS
earlier used |
|
Federal |
Koha |
Alice for Windows |
|
Federal |
Koha |
VITRUAL |
|
Federal |
Koha |
|
|
Federal |
Koha |
Alexandria |
|
Federal |
Strategic Library Automation (SLAM) |
|
|
Federal |
CDS ISIS |
|
|
Federal |
Koha |
|
|
Federal |
VIRTUA |
|
|
Federal |
Koha |
|
|
Federal |
New
Gen Lib |
SLAM |
|
Federal |
Readable
|
VIRTUAL, Alice for
Windows |
|
Federal |
Koha |
Alice for Windows |
|
Federal |
|
VIRTUAL |
|
Federal |
New
Gen Lib |
Millennium |
|
Federal |
Koha |
GLASS, LIB+ |
|
Federal |
Koha |
VIRTUAL |
|
State
|
SLAM |
|
|
State |
|
|
|
State |
Koha |
|
|
State |
Koha |
X-Lib, SLAM |
|
State |
|
|
|
State |
Senayan LMS |
SLAM |
|
State |
|
|
|
State |
Koha |
|
|
State |
SLAM |
|
|
State |
Alice
for Windows |
|
|
State |
Koha |
|
|
State |
Koha |
|
|
State |
|
|
|
Private |
Greenstone |
|
|
Private |
Koha |
X-Lib |
|
Private |
New
Gen Lib |
|
|
Private |
Koha |
|
|
Private |
Millennium |
|
|
Private |
Koha |
|
|
Private
|
Koha |
|
Table 1b
Type
of ILS Used Earlier and Currently in Use in the Selected University Libraries
|
University |
ILS currently in use |
ILS used earlier |
||
|
Open source ILS |
Proprietary |
Open source ILS |
Proprietary |
|
|
Federal |
Koha |
|
|
Alice for Windows |
|
Federal |
Koha |
|
|
VITRUAL |
|
Federal |
Koha |
|
|
|
|
Federal |
Koha |
|
|
Alexandria |
|
Federal |
|
Strategic Library Automation (SLAM) |
|
|
|
Federal |
|
CDS ISIS |
|
|
|
Federal |
Koha |
|
|
|
|
Federal |
|
VIRTUAL |
|
|
|
Federal |
Koha |
|
|
|
|
Federal |
New
Gen Lib |
|
|
SLAM |
|
Federal |
|
Readable |
|
VIRTUAL, Alice for
Windows |
|
Federal |
Koha |
|
|
Alice for Windows |
|
Federal |
|
|
|
VIRTUAL |
|
Federal |
New
Gen Lib |
|
|
Millennium |
|
Federal |
Koha |
|
|
GLASS, LIB+ |
|
Federal |
Koha |
|
|
VIRTUAL |
|
State
|
|
SLAM |
|
|
|
State |
Koha |
|
|
|
|
State |
Koha |
|
|
X-Lib, SLAM |
|
State |
|
|
|
|
|
State |
Senayan LMS (SLMS) |
|
|
SLAM |
|
State |
|
|
|
|
|
State |
Koha |
|
|
|
|
State |
|
SLAM |
|
|
|
State |
|
Alice for Windows |
|
|
|
State |
Koha |
|
|
|
|
State |
Koha |
|
|
|
|
State |
|
|
|
|
|
State |
|
|
|
|
|
Private |
Greenstone |
|
|
|
|
Private |
Koha |
|
|
X-Lib |
|
Private |
New
Gen Lib |
|
|
|
|
Private |
Koha |
|
|
|
|
Private |
|
Millennium |
|
|
|
Private |
Koha |
|
|
|
|
Private
|
Koha |
|
|
|
Research
objective 1: Extent of ILS adoption in Nigeria university libraries.
Table 1a shows the state of ILS adoption in federal,
state, and private university libraries in Nigeria (see full list of university
libraries in this study in Appendix B).
Results in Table
1a show the ones adopted earlier as well as the ones in use in the
various university libraries represented in this study. It is evident in Table
1a that the majority of the Nigeria university libraries have adopted ILS for
the delivery of library services to their patrons. The results show that some
libraries had adopted a different ILS before adopting the current one in use
while for some libraries, the one currently in use is their first ILS. Results
in Table 1a also show a shift from the adoption of proprietary ILS among the federal
university libraries to open source ILS with 9 out of the 16 federal university
libraries in this study using Koha ILS. This may be connected to the problems
associated with the adoption and use of proprietary ILS. Results in Table 1a also show that only 10 federal university libraries, 2 state university
libraries and 1 private university library out of the 36 libraries represented
in this study had earlier adopted ILS while 23 of the libraries had none in
use. However, results in Table 1a show
some improvement on the extent of adoption of ILS as 31 of the libraries among
the 36 in this study have adopted ILS with only 5 of the libraries that have
none in use.
The results in Table
1b show the types of ILS that are adopted in university libraries in
Nigeria. It is evident in Table 1b that all the libraries that started the use
of ILS adopted only proprietary ILS since none of the libraries in this study
had open source ILS. This shows that in the past, Nigeria university libraries
selected proprietary ILS more frequently than open source ILS, allowing the
proprietary ILS to thrive despite research that reported its shortcomings.
Results also show that out of the 36 libraries in this study, 8 libraries (4
federal, 3 state, and 1 private) are currently using proprietary ILS. Furthermore, results in Table 1b show that out of the 13 state university libraries, 4 are yet to
adopt ILS for library services. It is interesting to note that federal
libraries have predominantly changed systems in this study, while open source
ILS was not initially adopted by any of the libraries. This means that the
federal university libraries are at the forefront of adopting ILS in Nigeria
than the state and private universities. The higher number of federal
university libraries that adopted ILS may be the result of the effort made by
the World Bank in collaboration with the National Universities Commission
(NUC), which supported 20 federal universities in Nigeria with TINLIB
automation software.
Research objective 2: Level of achievements with ILS in Nigeria
university libraries
The results shown in Figure 2 demonstrate some strides that have been made by the
university libraries in Nigeria with the use of ILS. The results indicate that
out of the 36 respondents from the various libraries in this study, as shown in
Appendix A, a majority or 30 of them specify that the ILS adopted at their
various libraries provided on-the-spot access to resources for their patrons.
Results shown in Figure 2 also suggest that adoption of ILS in university
libraries in Nigeria enable sharing of information resources with other
libraries as attested by 26 of the respondents. Others key results include the
use of online cataloguing, accessing books and external sources, and making
online instruction available for staff and students. The result shows that
Nigeria university libraries are making progress in library services through
the use of ILS. Perhaps this is also due to the increasing number of ILS that is
now in use in the university libraries as shown in Table 1a.
Figure
2
Achievements
made with ILS in university libraries in Nigeria
Table 2
Performance
of ILS in Library Services
Research
objective 3: Performance of ILS in library services in Nigeria
university libraries
In Table 2, the results show an impressive performance
of the ILS that are adopted in various university libraries throughout Nigeria.
Results reveal that ILS accuracy and flexibility are good 
= 4.66
respectively while data entry and currency has = 4.55. On the
ease of use, reliability and completeness, ILS results show higher mean, = 4.38 and 4.33
respectively. Result on the timeliness of ILS shows a mean of 
= 4.27.
The findings in Table 2 indicate that the adoption of
ILS would improve the overall performance and increase productivity of the
library because of timeliness, reliability, and accuracy in providing resources
for teaching, learning, and research, as well as gathering statistics of all
the activities within the ILS. In addition, the flexible nature of ILS makes it
easier for both librarians and users to use it in performing their duties and
assignments.
Research
objective 4: Shortcomings of ILS in Nigeria university
libraries
The results in Table 3 reveal the shortcomings of ILS adoption in
university libraries in Nigeria. The table focuses on those factors
(shortcomings) that impede the performance and achievements of university
libraries in their use of ILS in Nigeria.
The
results in Table 3 show that among the factors that count as shortcomings in
the use of ILS in libraries, robustness, inadequate training, and technical
knowhow have a higher mean of 4.0 respectively. This means that these are the
major shortcomings of ILS in the libraries. Other shortcomings of ILS in
Nigeria university libraries in Table 3 are inadequate skilled personnel = 3.91, high cost of implementation = 3.77, inadequate ICT facilities in the
library X = 3.69, tedious and difficult to manage = 3.08, lack of vendors’ support = 3.27, and frequent system failure = 2.52. Results in Table 3 indicate that
non-compatibility with the Internet is less of a shortcoming for the adoption
of ILS in libraries than the other items listed in Table 3. This implies that
improving all of the shortcomings as shown in this result, would enhance the
achievements and performance of ILS in university libraries.
Discussion
The findings in this study
clearly demonstrate the importance of adopting Hamilton and Chervany’s
CVs for the evaluation of ILS in university libraries in Nigeria and across the
world. It further reveals the significance of using a holistic approach for the
evaluation of ILS, with the inclusion of shortcomings as proposed in the model
in Figure 1 before the adoption of ILS, to eliminate the risk of failure and
the tendency of switching from one system to another. It is evident from this
study that most of the university libraries in Nigeria had at one time or
another switched from one system to another which might have affected their
performance, achievement, and productivity. This scenario could be avoided when
a thorough evaluation of the performance, achievements, and shortcomings is
done on a new ILS prior to implementation.
Table 3
Shortcomings of ILS in Nigeria
University Libraries
Taking a critical look at
Hamilton and Chervany CVs and Farajpahlou’s
criteria, including the evaluation of shortcomings, before deciding on the
adoption of ILS, has the potential of helping the library to identify and avoid
problems when implementing a new or second ILS. Such conscious evaluation would
help to identify a feasible system. The findings in this study showed a gap in
the evaluation criteria that has been bridged by the model as shown in Figure
1. It would also be beneficial for university libraries in Nigeria and other
parts of the world that are yet to adopt any ILS, to focus its evaluation
criteria on the Hamilton and Chervany proposal, Farajpahlou evaluation criteria, this current study, and
possibly others. This approach could help to eliminate challenges that may
arise in the future.
The
findings in Table 3 show some of
the shortcomings of ILS in Nigeria university libraries. They indicates that among the factors, robustness, inadequate
training, and technical knowhow have a higher mean of 4.0 respectively. This
means that those variables are the major shortcomings of ILS adoption in
Nigeria university libraries. These shortcomings needs
to be critically examined because it has become a recurrent issue in some
recent studies, for instance, Osaniyi (2010), Omeluzor et al. (2012) and Ojedokun,
Olla and Adigun (2016) have reported on some of these shortcomings without
recommending the use of either CVs or Farajpahlou’s
evaluation criteria, which would have provided acceptable criteria to evaluate
ILS in libraries. The same shortcomings as shown in Table 3 have remained major hindrances for the adoption of ILS in
some university libraries in Nigeria and other parts of the world. These
shortcomings are directly or indirectly affecting the functions and performance
of the university libraries when it comes to the delivery of quality library
services to their patrons.
Limitations and
Opportunities for Further Study
This
study was limited to 36 university libraries from the 6 geo-political zones in
Nigeria. The method of the study was limited to a structured online
questionnaire without a face-to-face administration of the questionnaire and
interview guide. The data collected and analyzed in this study were from the
few selected university libraries in the six geo-political zones. A study of more
university libraries in Nigeria using qualitative methods might produce
different results and provide additional information. Future studies might
investigate factors that would influence the choice for the adoption of ILS in
libraries and how to overcome some of the shortcomings that are revealed in
this study.
Conclusion and
Recommendations
The main reason for the adoption and use of ILS in
libraries is to enable quality management and delivery of library services,
improving access and easy retrieval of information resources. In my opinion,
the library patrons of today have high expectations of library services and
are, for the most part, not satisfied with traditional methods. Within the last
decade, university libraries in Nigeria have witnessed a turnaround in the
adoption of ILS despite the disparaging remarks of Aguolu
and Aguolu (2006). The transformation being witnessed
in the Nigeria university libraries through the use of ILS is tremendous as
revealed by Oladokun and Kolawole (2018). Furthermore,
the performance of ILS in Nigeria university libraries as it relates to Farajpahlou’s (1999) criteria for assessing the success of
ILS is encouraging. These criteria include data and currency, accuracy,
reliability and completeness, flexibility, ease of use, and timeliness. That
said, several shortcomings still exist in the adoption and use of ILS in
Nigeria university libraries. Improving ILS adoption will require a conscious
effort and decisiveness to ensure that librarians and library patrons enjoy the
benefits that ILS offer. ILS developers should be able to consider the dynamic
needs of university libraries and their patrons and therefore incorporate those
specific features of Hamilton and Chervany’s CVs in
their ILS design, while keeping in mind the shortcomings presented in this
study. This type of thoughtful design will enhance the quality of library
services offered to patrons. Due to the various challenges facing university
libraries in Nigeria, and some other countries in the world, and the failure of
some libraries to adopt a robust ILS, the following recommendations are put
forward:
- Proper planning, adoption and implementation of
ILS in libraries should be the library’s first step.
- ILS developers should strive to gather feedback
from the ILS user community to identify some of the shortcomings, leading
to product enhancement.
- Future developments in ILS should incorporate
tested theories such as Hamilton and Chervany’s
CVs and Farajpahlou’s criteria in order to meet
certain expectations of librarians.
- University libraries should be at the forefront
of providing necessary changes in the delivery of information services
through the adoption and use of viable ILS.
- TETFund support for the funding of government owned universities in
Nigeria should be encouraged and sustained while alternative sources of
funding should be sought for ILS adoption in university libraries.
- University librarians in Nigeria should adopt a
system for the training and up skilling of staff to help in acquiring
relevant skills and knowledge related to the use of ILS for library
services.
References
Adegbore, A. M. (2010). Automation in two Nigerian university libraries. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal),
Paper 425. Retrieved from: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/425
Agboola, A.T. (2000). Five decades of Nigerian university
libraries: A review. Libri, 50 (41), 27-34. https://doi.org/10.1515/LIBR.2000.280
Aguolu, C. C. & Aguolu, I. E. (2006). The impact
of technology on library collections and services in Nigeria, In the Impact of
Technology on Asian, African and Middle Easter Library Collections, ed. R.
Sharma (Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press, 2006), 145.
Akpokodje, N. V. & Akpokodje, T. E. (2015). Assessment and evaluation of Koha
ILS for online library registration at University of Jos, Nigeria. Asian Journal of Computer and Information
Systems, 3 (1), 20-27.
Ani, O. E.
(2007). ICT revolution in African librarianship: Problems and prospects. Gateway Library Journal, 10 (2),
111-117.
Atua-Ntow, C. (2016). Staff assessment of the success of the integrated library
system: The case of the University of Ghana library system. http://hdl.handle.net/2263/59625 Retrieved from https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/59625/Ntow_Staff_2017.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y
Ayiah, E. M. & Kumah, C. H. (2011, August 13 -
18). Social networking: a tool to use for effective service delivery to
clients by African Libraries [Paper presentation]. A paper presented at the
World Library and Information Congress: 77th IFLA General Conference
and Assembly. San Juan, Puerto Rico. https://cf5-www.ifla.org/past-wlic/2011/183-ayiah-en.pdf
Breeding, M. (2009). Opening up library automation software. Computers in
Libraries, 29(2), 25-28. Retrieved from https://librarytechnology.org/document/13803
Farajpahlou, A. H. (1999). Defining some criteria for the success of automated
library system. Library Review, 48(4), 169-180. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242539910276451
Farajpahlou, A. H. (2002). Criteria for the success of automated library systems:
Iranian experience (application and test of the related scale). Library Review, 51(7), 364-3721. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530210438664
Hamilton, S. & Chervany,
N. L. (1981). Evaluating information system effectiveness – part 1: comparing
evaluation approaches. MIS Quarterly,
5(3), 55-69. https://doi.org/10.2307/249291
Hill, J.C. & Patterson, C. (2013). Assessment from
a distance: A case study implementing focus groups at an Online Library. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 20(3-4), 399-413. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2013.829376
Kumar, V. & Jasimudeen,
S. (2012). Adoption and user perception of Koha Library Management System in
India. Annals of Library and Information
Studies, 59, 223-230. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/reader/11890295
Lucidea.com (n.d.). The
integrated library system (ILS) primer. Retrieved from https://lucidea.com/special-libraries/the-integrated-library-system-ils-primer/
Mbakwe, C. E. & Ibegbulam, I. J. (2014). Efforts
and challenges of automation of University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus Library [Paper
presentation]. A paper presented at the Nigeria Library Association, Enugu
State Chapter 14th annual conference and general meeting, Enugu
State., November 25 – 29.
Nok, G. (2006). The challenges of computerizing a university library in
Nigeria: The case of Kashim Ibrahim Library, Ahmed
Bello University, Zaria. Library
Philosophy and Practice, 8 (2), 1-9. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/188041074.pdf
Nworgu, B.G. (2006). Educational Research: Basic Issues and Methodology. (2nded.). Nsukka: University Trust
publishers, p. 23.
Ojedokun, A. A., Olla, G.O.O., & Adigun, S.A. (2016). Integrated library
system implementation: The Bowen University Library experience with Koha
software. African Journal of Library
& Information Science, 26(1), 31- 42. http://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajlais/article/view/135088
Okiy, R. B. (1998). Nigerian university libraries and the challenges of
information provision in the 21st century. Library Bulletin, 3(1
& 2), 17-28.
Okpokwasili, N. P. & Blakes, E. (2014). Users’ participation in acquisition and
users’ satisfaction with the information resources in university libraries in
the South-South zone of Nigeria. Journal
of Research in Education and Society, 5(3), 71.-85. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332321278_Authors'_Reputation_and_Users'_Satisfaction_with_the_Information_Resources_in_University_Libraries_in_the_South-South_Zone_of_Nigeria
Oladokun, T. & Kolawole, L.F. (2018). Sustainability of Library Automation
in Nigerian Libraries: Koha Open Source Software. Library Philosophy and
Practice. Paper 1929. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1929/
Omeluzor, S. U. & Oyovwe-Tinuoye, G. O. (2016).
Assessing the adoption and use of Integrated Library System (ILS) for library
service provision in academic libraries in Edo and Delta States, Nigeria. Library
Review, 65(8/9), 578-592. https://doi.org/10.1108/lr-01-2016-0005
Omeluzor, S.U., Adara, O., Madukoma,
E., Bamidele, I.A. & Umahi, F.O. (2012). Implementation
of Koha integrated library management software (ILMS): The Babcock University
experience. Canadian Social Science, 8(4),
211-221. https://doi.org/10.3968/j.css.1923669720120804.1860
Osaniyi, L. (2010). Evaluating the X-Lib Library Automation System at Babcock
University, Nigeria: A case study. Information Development, 26(1),
87-97. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666909358306
Riaz, M. (1992). Library Automation. ITIC
Publishers and Distributors: New Delhi. 61.
Sani, A. & Tiamiyu, M.
(2005). Evaluation of automated services in Nigerian universities. The Electronic Library, 23 (3),
274-288. https://doi.org/doi 110.1108/02640470510603679
Sharma, R. N. (2009). Technology and academic
libraries in developing nations [Paper presentation]. A paper presented at International
Conference on Academic Libraries (ICAL), India. p.23.
Shekarau, M. I. (2014). List of certified librarians
in Nigeria, 2014. Librarians’ Registration Council of Nigeria (LRCN)
Directories, p. iii
Singh, K. (2013). Impact of technology in library
services. International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research
(IJMSSR), 2(4), 74-76. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.300.9109&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Uzomba, E. C., Oyebola, O. J. & Izuchukwu, A. C. (2015). The use and application of open
source integrated library system in academic libraries in Nigeria: Koha
example. Library Philosophy and Practice. Paper 1250. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1250
Appendix A
Questionnaire on
the Evaluation of Integrated Library System in University Libraries in Nigeria:
An Empirical Study of the Achievements, Performance and Shortcomings
Dear Respondent,
This questionnaire may take about 10 minutes and is
designed to elicit data for the evaluation
of Integrated Library System (ILS) adoption in Nigeria University Libraries
focusing on the Achievements, Performance and Shortcomings. Information
provided on this questionnaire will be used strictly for the purpose of this
research. Please note that the respondent is not under any obligation to
respond to the questions. However, the researcher appeals for your assistance
in order to achieve the purpose of this study on schedule.
Thank you.
Researcher
Section 1: Demographic
Information of Respondents
a) What is the name of your University ………………………………………………………………
b) What is your gender Male Female
c) How long have you worked in your university
0-5 years 6-10
years 11-15 years 16-20 years
21-25 years 26-30 years 31
years and above
Section 2: Extent
of ILS adoption in Nigerian University Libraries
d) Which ILS is in use at your Library? Please specify: ……………………………………………..
e) Does your University use one previously?
Yes
No
Maybe
f) If your answer to question 5 is yes, which one was that
………………………………………….
Section 3: Achievements
made with the adoption of ILS in Library services
g) Kindly indicate some of the achievements that your university has made
with ILS
|
Statement |
tick |
|
Provide
on-the-spot access to resources to patrons |
|
|
sharing
of resources with other libraries |
|
|
Enable
online cataloguing |
|
|
Provide
access to books and external sources |
|
|
Online
instruction of staff and students |
|
|
Not
in-use at the moment |
|
Section 4: Performance
level of ILS in Nigeria University Libraries
h) How will you rate the performance of the ILS in your library?
|
Items |
Very good |
Good |
Poor |
Very poor |
Highly poor |
|
Data entry |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accuracy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reliability and completeness |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flexibility |
|
|
|
|
|
|
East of use |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timeliness |
|
|
|
|
|
Section 5: Shortcomings
of ILS adoption in Nigeria University Libraries
i) What are the shortcomings of ILS adoption in university libraries in
Nigeria?
|
Items |
Strongly agree |
Agree |
Strongly disagree |
Disagree |
Not sure |
|
Tedious and difficult
to manage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Too expensive to
implement |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inadequate ICT
facilities in the library |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-compatibility of
ILS with the Internet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frequent system
failure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not robust or enough
features to help achieve tasks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lack of vendors’
support |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inadequate skilled
personnel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inadequate training
and technical knowhow for librarians |
|
|
|
|
|
Appendix B
The selected federal, state and private universities in Nigeria used in
the study
|
SN |
University |
Ownership |
|
1. |
Ahmadu
Bello University, Zaria (ABU) |
Federal |
|
2. |
Bayero
University Kano (BUK) |
Federal |
|
3. |
Federal
University Lokoja (FUL) |
Federal |
|
4. |
Federal
University of Petroleum Resources Effurun (FUPRE) |
Federal |
|
5. |
Federal
University of Technology, Akure |
Federal |
|
6. |
Michael
Okpara Uni. of Agric., Umudike (MOU) |
Federal |
|
7. |
Nnamdi
Azikiwe University, Awka |
Federal |
|
8. |
Obafemi
Awolowo University, Ile-Ife (OAU) |
Federal |
|
9. |
University
of Agriculture, Markudi |
Federal |
|
10 |
University
of Benin (UNIBEN) |
Federal |
|
11 |
University
of Ibadan (UI) |
Federal |
|
12. |
University
of Ilorin (UNILORIN) |
Federal |
|
13. |
University
of Jos (UNIJOS) |
Federal |
|
14. |
University
of Lagos (UNILAG) |
Federal |
|
15. |
University
of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN) |
Federal |
|
16. |
University
of Port Harcourt (UNIPORT) |
Federal |
|
17. |
Ambrose
Ali University, Kano (AAU) |
State |
|
18. |
Bauchi
State University |
State |
|
19. |
Benue
State University (BSU) |
State |
|
20. |
Delta
State University, Abraka (DELSU) |
State |
|
21. |
Ebonyi
State University, Abakiliki (ESUA) |
State |
|
22. |
Ekiti
State University (ESU) |
State |
|
23. |
Ignatius
Ajuru University of Education(IAUOE),Rumuolumeni, Port Harcourt |
State |
|
24. |
Imo
State University, Owerri |
State |
|
25. |
Kogi
State University, Anyigba |
State |
|
26. |
Lagos
State University, Ojo (LASU) |
State |
|
27. |
Olabisi
Onabanjo University, Ago Iwoye (OOU) |
State |
|
28. |
Tai Solarin University of Education, Ijebu-Ode (TASUED) |
State |
|
29. |
University
of Medicine, Ondo (UMO) |
State |
|
30. |
American
University of Nigeria, Yola (AUN) |
Private |
|
31. |
Babcock
University, Ilishan-Remo (BU) |
Private |
|
32. |
Bingham
University |
Private |
|
33. |
Bowen
University, Iwo (BUI) |
Private |
|
34. |
Landmark
University, Omu-Aran. |
Private |
|
35, |
Rhema
University, Obeama-Asa, Abia
State |
Private |
|
36. |
Samuel
Adegboyega University, Ogwa
(SAU), Ogwa, Edo |
Private
|