Archival Science

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 55–83 | Cite as

Secondary adoption of technology standards: The case of PREMIS

  • Devan Ray Donaldson
  • Elizabeth Yakel
Original Paper


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.


Digital curation Digital preservation Implementation PREMIS Preservation metadata Secondary adoption Standards 


  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 85–104Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior (Pbk ed.). Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.JGoogle Scholar
  3. Alemneh DG (2009) Barriers to adopting PREMIS in cultural heritage institutions: an exploratory study. Archiving 2009, Arlington, Virginia, pp 111–118Google Scholar
  4. Caplan P (2009) Understanding PREMIS. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Retrieved from
  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:
  6. Conway P (1996) Preservation in the digital world. Washington DC: Commission on Preservation and Access. Retrieved from
  7. Cooper RB, Zmud RW (1990) Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approach. Manage Sci 36(2):123–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corbin JM, Strauss AL (2008) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE Publications, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  9. Dappert A, Enders M (2008) Using METS, PREMIS, and MODS for archiving eJournals. D-Lib Magazine 14(10) Retrieved from
  10. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage Sci 35(8):982–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Donaldson DR, Conway P (2010) Implementing PREMIS: a case study of the Florida Digital Archive. Library Hi Tech 28(2):273–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. 27–38Google Scholar
  13. Fichman RG, Kemerer CF (1999) The illusory diffusion of innovation: an examination of assimilation gaps. Inf Syst Res 10(3):255–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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):51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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
  16. Guenther R, Xie Z (2007) Implementing PREMIS in container formats. Archiving 2007, Arlington, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  17. Hofman H (2005) The use of standards and models. In: McLeod J, Hare C (eds) Managing electronic records. Facet, London, pp 18–33Google Scholar
  18. Kenney AR, Rieger OY (2000) Preserving digital assets: Cornell’s Digital Image Collection Project. First Monday 5(6): 5 June 2000Google Scholar
  19. Klein HK, Myers MD (1999) A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Q 23(1):67–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leonard-Barton D (1988) Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization. Res Policy 17(5):251–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leonard-Barton D, Deschamps I (1988) Managerial influence in the implementation of new technology. Manage Sci 34(10):1252–1265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Library of Congress (2011) Index to registered METS profiles. Metadata encoding and transmission standard official website. Retrieved from:
  23. Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  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
  25. Orlikowski WJ (1993) CASE tools as organizational change: investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development. MIS Q 17(3):309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. PREMIS Editorial Committee (2010) Conformant implementation of the PREMIS data dictionary. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Retrieved from
  27. PREMIS Editorial Committee (2011) PREMIS data dictionary for preservation metadata version 2.1. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Retrieved from
  28. PREMIS Maintenance Activity (2010) PREMIS implementation registry. Retrieved March 15, 2011, from
  29. PREMIS Working Group (2005) Data dictionary for preservation metadata: final report of the PREMIS Working Group. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Retrieved from
  30. Prescott MB, Conger SA (1995) Information technology innovations: a classification by IT locus of impact and research approach. SIGMIS database 26(2–3):20–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  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 67–86Google Scholar
  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 70–100Google Scholar
  34. Van de Ven A (1986) Central problems in the management of innovation. Manage Sci 32(5):590–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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
  36. Wenger E, McDermott RA, Snyder W (2002) Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MassGoogle Scholar
  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 119–132Google Scholar
  38. Woodyard-Robinson D (2007) Implementing the PREMIS data dictionary: a survey of approaches. Washington DC: Library of Congress. Retrieved from
  39. Zaltman G, Duncan R, Holbek J (1973) Innovations and organizations. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Zmud RW (2000) Framing the domains of IT management: projecting the future– through the past. Pinnaflex Education Resources, Inc., Cincinnati, OhioGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of InformationUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations