Growing competition in higher education and Information communication technologies is posing a pressure on universities and resultantly on their libraries as well. Academic libraries need to be innovative for meeting the new vision mission of higher education. Hence, innovation management in the university libraries is the need of the hour. However, there is a lack of research-based studies on innovation management in Pakistan. The purpose of this study is to ascertain the scenario of innovation management in university libraries of Pakistan. In particular, it seeks to investigate the importance, characteristics of innovation, current management practices, the barriers, and supporting factors that stimulate innovation. The study would also be useful for other developing countries of Asia because some other countries of Asian region have same type of social, economic and cultural infrastructure. This study adopted sequential mixed methods research design based on quantitative data collection, followed by qualitative data collection. In the first phase, websites of all 183 universities were examined using list of 40 innovations prepared by the Jantz (2013). The purpose of websites review was twofold: firstly to examine the status of adoption of innovations, and secondly, to draw sample cases for further investigation. The libraries possessing at least three similar innovation as listed by Jantz (2013) was ranked innovative and libraries with two or less were ranked traditional libraries. Twenty university libraries: ten traditional, and ten more innovative than those were selected purposively. The selected libraries were observed for innovation in the physical environment. Head librarians of selected libraries were interviewed to learn about their views on innovation management in their libraries. v The results of the website review indicated that 143 out of 183 university libraries did not possess any innovation as listed in Jantz (2013). Only 16% of the university libraries managed some listed innovations. The libraries categorized innovative possessed a better physical environment than the traditional category libraries.The results of semi- structured interviews of library leaders demonstrated that the respondents from both categories of libraries considered innovation as most important and defined the characteristics of innovation as close to the ones mentioned in the literature. The study found that the management styles of both types of library leader were represented as ‗collaborative‘, ‗consultative‘ and ‗democratic‘. However, the leaders of the innovative category library implemented formal strategies to manage innovations. This was missing in the traditional libraries. A range of successful projects (3-14) were found in the innovative libraries and traditional library leaders exhibited a minimal number (1-2) of such projects. According to the library leaders, budget shortage, a lack of staff, a lack of training, skills/knowledge, shortage of space, resistance to change, lack of leadership qualities, lack of incentive/reward/recognition, fear of failure, vision of higher authorities, non supportive attitude, and the unavailability of a library culture in the society were the barriers in adopting innovations. An overwhelming majority of the respondents ranked technology as a major force. Positive qualities of the leaders like vision and affective planning, competent and knowledgeable staff members, incentives rewards, appreciation, trainings, seminars and socialization with professionals, professional organizations, demands of users, higher authorities including vice chancellors, the Higher Education Commission, library and information science schools etc. were considered as supportive factors in bringing innovations. vi The study found that professionals can help scholars and researchers to learn the use of databases, and research software. However, there was no formal practice to facilitate the scholarly communication i.e., conversion of print journals to the electronic format with the cooperation of editors of research journals and preserving, archiving and managing the research output of the organization.Users group of libraries were found to be the same as in the past like students of all levels, faculty, researcher scholars and staff. No new group, like editors of research journals were involved with the library professional to digitalize the research contents into digital format. At the end of study, all library leaders were found optimistic for the future of university libraries by adopting the useful innovations.