Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Secondary adoption of technology standards: The case of PREMIS

Abstract

While archival scholars have identified some of the most important steps for deciding to use and implement metadata standards in archives, very little systematic empirical investigation within the archival science literature regards either how implementation processes actually unfold or the factors affecting implementation. This article analyzes the organizational factors and processes that come into play during implementation of metadata standards, using PREservation metadata: implementation strategies (PREMIS) as an exemplar. Adapting a theoretical framework for secondary adoption of technologies from Gallivan (Database Adv Inf Syst 32(3):51, 2001), the authors apply their model to the PREMIS technology standard and investigate PREMIS implementation by projects/programs on the Library of Congress PREMIS Implementation Registry. Using data from a series of in-depth semi-structured interviews, the authors develop a model for the secondary adoption of PREMIS and outline implications for the secondary adoption of technology standards based on the results of this study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Zmud (2000) defines assimilation as “the process within organizations stretching from initial awareness of the innovation to potentially formal adoption and full-scale deployment” (p 1).

  2. 2.

    Here P4O3 is referring to PREMIS events. PREMIS events correspond to the PREMIS event entity which “aggregates information about actions that affect objects in the repository. An accurate and trustworthy record of events is critical for maintaining the digital provenance of an object, which in turn is important in demonstrating the authenticity of the object. The information that can be recorded about events includes: a unique identifier for the event (type and value); the type of event (creation, ingestion, migration, etc.); the date and time the event occurred; a detailed description of the event; a coded outcome of the event; a more detailed description of the outcome, etc.” (Caplan 2009, p 10).

  3. 3.

    See footnote 2.

  4. 4.

    PREMIS agents are “actors that have roles in events and in rights statements…. Agents can be people, organizations, or software applications” (Caplan 2009 p 11).

  5. 5.

    The large firms included in Gallivan’s study had millions of dollars to support training for information technology applications, whereas none of the organizations included in this study had that magnitude of resources to devote to training.

  6. 6.

    For more information about previous and upcoming PREMIS tutorials and implementation fairs go to the PREMIS maintenance activity website at http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/.

References

  1. Agarwal R (2000) Individual acceptance of information technologies. In: Zmud RW (ed) Framing the domains of IT management: projecting the future through the past. Pinnaflex Press, Cincinnati, pp 85–104

  2. Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior (Pbk ed.). Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J

  3. Alemneh DG (2009) Barriers to adopting PREMIS in cultural heritage institutions: an exploratory study. Archiving 2009, Arlington, Virginia, pp 111–118

  4. Caplan P (2009) Understanding PREMIS. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/understanding-premis.pdf

  5. Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) (2002) Reference model for an open archival information system (OAIS) recommendation for space data system standards; blue book. Washington, DC: CCSDS Secretariat. Retrieved from: http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/650x0b1.pdf

  6. Conway P (1996) Preservation in the digital world. Washington DC: Commission on Preservation and Access. Retrieved from http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/conway2/

  7. Cooper RB, Zmud RW (1990) Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approach. Manage Sci 36(2):123–139

  8. Corbin JM, Strauss AL (2008) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles

  9. Dappert A, Enders M (2008) Using METS, PREMIS, and MODS for archiving eJournals. D-Lib Magazine 14(10) Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september08/dappert/09dappert.html

  10. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci 35(8):982–1003

  11. Donaldson DR, Conway P (2010) Implementing PREMIS: a case study of the Florida Digital Archive. Library Hi Tech 28(2):273–289

  12. Duff W (2004) Metadata in digital preservation: foundations, functions and issues. In: Bischoff FM, Hofman H, Ross S (eds) Metadata in preservation: selected papers from an ERPANET seminar at the Archives School Marburg pp. 27–38

  13. Fichman RG, Kemerer CF (1999) The illusory diffusion of innovation: an examination of assimilation gaps. Inf Syst Res 10(3):255–275

  14. Gallivan MJ (2001) Organizational adoption and assimilation of complex technological innovations: development and application of a new framework. Database Adv Inf Syst 32(3):51

  15. Garrett J, Waters D (1996) Preserving digital information: report of the task force on archiving of digital information. Washington, DC: Council on Library and information Resources. Retrieved from http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub63watersgarrett.pdf

  16. Guenther R, Xie Z (2007) Implementing PREMIS in container formats. Archiving 2007, Arlington, Virginia

  17. Hofman H (2005) The use of standards and models. In: McLeod J, Hare C (eds) Managing electronic records. Facet, London, pp 18–33

  18. Kenney AR, Rieger OY (2000) Preserving digital assets: Cornell’s Digital Image Collection Project. First Monday 5(6): 5 June 2000

  19. Klein HK, Myers MD (1999) A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Q 23(1):67–93

  20. Leonard-Barton D (1988) Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization. Res Policy 17(5):251–267

  21. Leonard-Barton D, Deschamps I (1988) Managerial influence in the implementation of new technology. Manage Sci 34(10):1252–1265

  22. Library of Congress (2011) Index to registered METS profiles. Metadata encoding and transmission standard official website. Retrieved from: http://www.loc.gov/standards/mets/mets-divTree.html

  23. Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

  24. OCLC/RLG Working Group on Preservation Metadata (2002) Preservation metadata and the OAIS information model: a metadata framework to support the preservation of digital objects. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC. Retrieved from http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/past/orprojects/pmwg/pm_framework.pdf

  25. Orlikowski WJ (1993) CASE tools as organizational change: investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development. MIS Q 17(3):309

  26. PREMIS Editorial Committee (2010) Conformant implementation of the PREMIS data dictionary. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/premis-conformance-oct2010.pdf

  27. PREMIS Editorial Committee (2011) PREMIS data dictionary for preservation metadata version 2.1. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/v2/premis-2-1.pdf

  28. PREMIS Maintenance Activity (2010) PREMIS implementation registry. Retrieved March 15, 2011, from http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/premis-registry.php

  29. PREMIS Working Group (2005) Data dictionary for preservation metadata: final report of the PREMIS Working Group. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Retrieved from http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/past/orprojects/pmwg/premis-final.pdf

  30. Prescott MB, Conger SA (1995) Information technology innovations: a classification by IT locus of impact and research approach. SIGMIS database 26(2–3):20–41

  31. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New York

  32. Saga VL, Zmud RW (1994) The nature and determinants of IT acceptance, routinization, and infusion. In: Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 working conference on diffusion, transfer and implementation of information technology, pp 67–86

  33. Shaw T, Jarvenpaa SL (1997) Information systems and qualitative research. In: Proceedings of the IFIP TC8 WG 8.2 International Conference on Information Systems and Qualitative Research, pp 70–100

  34. Van de Ven A (1986) Central problems in the management of innovation. Manage Sci 32(5):590–607

  35. Vermaaten S (2010) A checklist and a case for documenting PREMIS-METS decisions in a METS profile. D-Lib Magazine 16(9/10) Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september10/vermaaten/09vermaaten.html

  36. Wenger E, McDermott RA, Snyder W (2002) Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass

  37. Wilson A (2004) Too many metadata standards? The Australian experience. In: Bischoff FM, Hofman H, Ross S (eds) Metadata in preservation: selected papers from an ERPANET seminar at the Archives School Marburg, pp 119–132

  38. Woodyard-Robinson D (2007) Implementing the PREMIS data dictionary: a survey of approaches. Washington DC: Library of Congress. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/standards/premis/implementation-report-woodyard.pdf

  39. Zaltman G, Duncan R, Holbek J (1973) Innovations and organizations. Wiley, New York

  40. Zmud RW (2000) Framing the domains of IT management: projecting the future– through the past. Pinnaflex Education Resources, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Devan Ray Donaldson.

Appendix: interview protocol

Appendix: interview protocol

Section 1

  1. (1)

    What is your institution’s mission with respect to preservation of digital objects?

  2. (2)

    What information does your institution think is important to know about each of the digital objects you are responsible for preserving?

  3. (3)

    What did you use before using PREMIS? How does PREMIS compare to what you were using before?

  4. (4)

    What metadata standards or schemes do you use at your institution?

Section 2

  1. (5)

    What do you use PREMIS for?

  2. (6)

    Who made the decision to adopt PREMIS at your institution?

  3. (7)

    For how long have you been implementing PREMIS at your institution?

  4. (8)

    How does PREMIS interact with the other metadata standards you are using (i.e., such as METS)?

  5. (9)

    How many staff members are responsible for implementing PREMIS at your institution?

  6. (10)

    How would you describe the PREMIS implementation process at your institution (i.e., what steps are involved in the implementation of PREMIS at your institution)?

  7. (11)

    How easy or difficult has it been to use PREMIS to represent information that your institution thinks is necessary for preserving digital objects?

  8. (12)

    Are your institution’s policies for preservation of digital objects reflected in your institution’s current implementation of PREMIS? (Please provide examples)

  9. (13)

    How does your manager support use of PREMIS at your institution?

  10. (14)

    What sorts of things did you do/are you doing to learn how to use PREMIS?

  11. (15)

    Does using PREMIS make your job easier/better?

  12. (16)

    Does using PREMIS advance your institution’s goals with respect to preservation of digital objects? How so?

  13. (17)

    Is PREMIS embedded in your institution’s preservation systems and protocols?

  14. (18)

    What sorts of activities do you do to make sure that PREMIS is “working” as you desired or hoped it would?

  15. (19)

    Is there anything that PREMIS does not do that you wish it could do?

  16. (20)

    How often do you utilize resources on the Library of Congress’ PREMIS Maintenance Activity website?

  17. (21)

    Are you a member of the PREMIS Implementers’ Group, a free listserv called the PIG list?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Donaldson, D.R., Yakel, E. Secondary adoption of technology standards: The case of PREMIS. Arch Sci 13, 55–83 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-012-9179-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Digital curation
  • Digital preservation
  • Implementation
  • PREMIS
  • Preservation metadata
  • Secondary adoption
  • Standards