Table of contents
1. Introduction
1.1 Thesis background
1.2 Research justification and objective
1.3 Research methodology
1.3.1 Choice for a computer delivered survey
1.4 Thesis structure
2. Literature research and theoretical orientation
2.1 Chapter introduction
2.2 XBRL for Dutch accounting organizations
2.2.1 Brief overview of XBRL
2.2.2 The history of XBRL
2.2.3 The structure of XBRL
2.2.4 XBRL in the Netherlands
2.2.5 General advantages and disadvantages of the use of XBRL
2.2.6 Processes of accounting organizations and consequences of XBRL
2.3 The Dutch market of small and medium sized accounting organizations
2.3.1 Definition of small and medium sized organizations in the Netherlands
2.3.2 Branch organizations (professional associations) in the Dutch market of small and medium sized accounting organizations
2.3.3 The use of XBRL in small and medium sized accounting organizations in the Netherlands
2.4 Acceptance versus adoption
2.4.1 Adoption measurement
2.4.2 Acceptance measurement
2.5 Acceptance measurement models
2.5.1 Technology acceptance models
2.5.2 Reumerman’s integrated model
2.4.3 Usage of Reumerman’s integrated model
2.5 Chapter conclusions
3. Operationalization of theoretical acceptance factors and identification of responders
3.1 Chapter introduction
3.2 The operationalization process
3.3 The survey design
3.4 General questions and identification of the responders
3.4.1 Organization size
3.4.2 Fields of activity
3.4.3 Memberships of branch organizations
3.4.4 Decision about XBRL usage
3.5 Operationalization of the factors of the organizational perspective
3.5.1 Factor: Decision-making structure
3.5.2 Factor: Top management support
3.5.3 Factor: Goal alignment
3.5.4 Factor: Managerial IT knowledge
3.5.5 Factor: Management style
3.5.6 Factor: Resources allocation
3.6 Operationalization of the factors of the technology perspective
3.6.1 Factor: Information system facilities
3.6.2 Factor: Information system competency
3.6.3 Factor: Information system integration
3.6.4 Factor: User support
3.6.5 Factor: Information system structure
3.7 Operationalization of the factors of the user perspective
3.7.1 Factor: Perceived ease of use
3.7.2 Factor: Job relevance
3.7.3 Factor: Result demonstrability
3.7.4 Factor: Output quality
3.7.5 Factor: Subjective norm
3.7.6 Factor: Image
3.7.7 Factor: Voluntariness
3.8 Recommendations for further acceptance and adoption surveys
3.9 Chapter conclusions
4. Survey outcomes by operationalized factor
4.1 Chapter introduction
4.2 Survey outcomes for the organizational perspective
4.2.1 Overview of the results by operationalized factor
4.2.2 Analysis of the results by operationalized factor
4.3 Survey outcomes for the information technology perspective
4.3.1 Overview of the results by operationalized factor
4.3.2 Analysis of the results by operationalized factor
4.4 Survey outcomes for the user perspective
4.4.1 Overview of the results by operationalized factor
4.4.2 Analysis of the results by operationalized factor
4.5 Chapter conclusions
5. Adoption of XBRL
5.1 Chapter introduction
5.2 Current adoption
5.3 Expected adoption
5.4 Predicted adoption
5.5 XBRL adoption versus Rogers adoption curve
5.6 Chapter conclusions
6. Acceptance of XBRL
6.1 Chapter introduction
6.2 Calculation of results
6.3 XBRL acceptance in the organizational perspective
6.4 XBRL acceptance in the information technology perspective
6.5 XBRL acceptance in the user perspective
6.6 XBRL acceptance in general
6.7 Chapter conclusions
7. Global conclusions and further research
7.1 XBRL and the Dutch market of small and medium-sized accounting organizations
7.2 Measurement of adoption and acceptance of XBRL
7.3 Adoption and acceptance of XBRL
7.4 Weaknesses in this study
7.5 Further research
8. References
Appendix A. XBRL survey ‘Are accountants and taxation specialists ready for XBRL?’
Appendix A.1. Nieuwsbericht op NIVRA website
Appendix A.2. Enquête
Appendix B. Charts for the results by operationalized acceptance factors.
Appendix C. Correlations
1. Introduction
1.1 Thesis background
This thesis is written to complete my Masters Degree in Economics and Informatics at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam (the Netherlands). The subject of this thesis is XBRL. XBRL is the abbreviation for eXtensible Business Reporting Language. It is an open standard for digital exchange of financial data, based on XML (eXtensible Markup Language). In the seminar period before this master thesis, I have done a study on the financial costs and benefits of XBRL in the business reporting chains from accounting organizations to the Dutch Tax Office and the Chamber of Commerce with three other students. [DGLS2009]
Although the conclusion of that research was that it was at that moment too early for gathering empirical evidence about specific costs and burdens, the interest for the developments around XBRL was awaken.
At the end of the seminar and before the start of this thesis Jan Pasmooij RE RA RO (chairman XBRL Netherlands and IT manager at NIVRA) and thesis supervisor Prof. dr. Gert J. van der Pijl were contacted. With these two persons, the developments around XBRL and at the fields where information is still limited have been looked at. This meeting resulted in the decision to start a study that would give more insight into the adoption and acceptance of XBRL by small and medium sized accounting organizations in the Netherlands. The main focus of this study is the acceptance.
The study focuses on small and medium-sized organizations (SME), because this is the largest group of accounting organizations in the Netherlands, and also because there is not much information available about their adoption and acceptance. Larger accounting organizations are more involved in XBRL conventions compared to smaller organizations. In some situations are agreements about the use of XBRL part of a convention. Meetings of convention members are sometimes used to exchange information about the use of XBRL. Therefore it can be stated that there is more information available about the acceptance of XBRL of large accounting organizations and less about small and medium-sized accounting organizations. Therefore these organizations are the scope of this study.
1.2 Research justification and objective
In various different sources of information the acceptance of XBRL is spoken about, mostly referred to as the next step in development of XBRL [ACCAGE01] [ACCWEB01] [CHS04] [HIGHB01] [JOURACC01] [Q4BLOG01]. However a study that measures the state of acceptance based on acceptance theory model is not known. Also there has been no study done before on this subject, with the focus on the small and medium sized accounting organization market in the Netherlands, which has measured the adoption and acceptance on this scale. For this study a survey is spread among all accounting organizations in the Netherlands.
Jaron Azaria [AZARIA07] conducted a field research on the current position of digital financial reporting in large organizations, and the role of XBRL in this process. This field research shares some elements with acceptance measurement that is described later on, but no specific acceptance model was used. Another big difference is the focus of the study— Azaria focused on large companies, while this study focuses on small and medium sized accounting organizations.
The main research question of this study is defined as follows:
- What is the current state of adoption and acceptance of XBRL in small and medium-sized accounting organizations in the Netherlands and how can it be explained?
Before this research question can be answered, the following sub research questions also need to be answered:
- What is XBRL and what does it mean for accounting organizations?
- How does the Dutch small and medium-sized accounting organizations market look like?
- Which models are available for adoption and acceptance measurement?
- How could the adoption and acceptance of XBRL be measured for small and medium-sized accounting organizations in the Netherlands?
- Which measurement questions need to be asked half-yearly to measure the acceptance of XBRL for small and medium-sized accounting organizations in the Netherlands?
1.3 Research methodology
The first phase of this study was the literature study. During this phase information was collected from a large number of sources. This gave some insight into the current situation of the acceptance at SME organization, but more information had to be gathered from the SME organizations themselves.
In consultation with the NIVRA some possibilities are considered for how this information could be gathered. Eventually a computer-delivered survey was chosen. The survey is spread by 5 accounting branch organizations (professional associations) in the Netherlands amongst all accounting organizations in the Netherlands.
Below is a brief description of why a computer delivered survey was chosen.
1.3.1 Choice for a computer delivered survey
There are three types of ‘interviews’ according to the book ‘Business Research Methods’ [BLUM05]:
- Personal interviews
- Telephone interviews
- Self-administered surveys
Each of these approaches has its advantages and disadvantages. For this study, the following requirements were defined:
- Time efficient. The method had to be time efficient, because the project has to be carried out in a limited time frame and should be easily repeatable.
- Low costs. Costs of this study had to stay low.
- Minimum requirement of staff. As a result of limited time and budget, the staff requirements to carry out the ‘interview’ had to be minimal.
- Anonymous. The ‘interview’ has to be carried out anonymously. Information about the state of XBRL acceptance and implementation can be company-sensitive information because it could give the company a competition advantage.
Based on these criteria, a self-administered survey is the best solution. However, it also has some disadvantages. [BLUM05].
The disadvantages will be described below, along with the measures taken to reduce these disadvantages.
- Accurate mailing lists are required. Because of the involvement of the mentioned branch organizations, it was possible to reach all the accounting organizations.
- Instructions needed and no possibility to ask follow-up questions. The following steps are taken to formulate clear questions that provide the needed information and therefore reduce this disadvantage. For the drawing up of the questions for the survey a number of personal interviews are held with XBRL professionals in the Netherlands. After these interviews the questions were improved in cooperation with the NIVRA (and indirectly also with other branch organizations). In the last step, before the survey was spread, it was presented to a test group to test if the questions were clear.
In the self-administered survey category three types of surveys are distinguished [BLUM05]:
- Mail surveys
- Computer-delivered surveys
- Intercept studies
Only the first two were options for this study. For matters of cost efficiency and easy result processing, a computer delivered survey was in favor above a mail survey and was therefore chosen as research method.
1.4 Thesis structure
In the next chapter of this thesis are the results of the literature study described.
The literature study has been split up into a segment about XBRL in general, and a segment about the stakeholders of XBRL in the Dutch accounting market. Also, the difference between adoption and acceptance is described in the literature study, along with the available acceptance models and the acceptance model of Reumerman (which has been used) in particular.
Chapter 3 discusses the operationalization of the factors. For each factor it has been discussed what influence it has, and which questions are asked in the survey. Also, the results of the general measurement questions are presented.
Chapter 4 contains the results of the factor specific measurement questions. The results are described for all responders that fall in the small and medium size organizations definition and the results are analyzed for correlations.
In chapter 5 the results about the adoption of XBRL are presented. We look at the current adoption, the expected adoption and the predicted adoption.
In chapter 6 we look at the results by acceptance perspectives and at the total acceptance result for XBRL.
Chapter 7 contains the conclusions of this study and chapter 8 contains a complete list of literature that has been used in this study.
This document contains three appendixes. In appendix A the survey is found as it was sent to the accounting organizations. Appendix B contains charts for the results of the factor specific measurement questions. Appendix C contains a table of all calculated correlations for the survey results.
2. Literature research and theoretical orientation
2.1 Chapter introduction
The literature study and theoretical orientation is an important element of this study. The purpose of the literature study is to create a base of knowledge to answer the first three sub-research questions. Each of the following subchapters is based on one of these questions. The three sub-research questions are answered in the conclusions of this chapter.
The first subchapter contains general information about what XBRL is and what the current developments are. Also the involved parties, the advantages, disadvantages and the impact of XBRL are described.
Chapter 2.3 contains a description of the Dutch market of small and medium sized accounting organizations. The definition of small and medium sized companies is described, along with some branch organizations (professional associations) that are active in the accounting market. A brief analysis of the use of XBRL in that market, based on literature, is also part of that subchapter.
Chapter 2.4 of the literature research provides more information about the difference between adoption and acceptance and contains an overview of the available models for technology acceptance measurement. The development of models is briefly described. The model that is used for this study is described in more detail and an explanation is provided for why this model has been chosen.
2.2 XBRL for Dutch accounting organizations
This subchapter provides an overview of the XBRL technology, the situation in the Netherlands and the advantages and disadvantages of XBRL usage. It also provides an overview of Dutch accounting organizations, their processes and the possibilities for the use of XBRL.
2.2.1 Brief overview of XBRL
XBRL is the abbreviation for eXtensible Business Reporting Language. It is an open standard for digital exchange of financial data, based on XML (eXtensible Markup Language). XBRL is being developed by an international non-profit consortium of major companies, organizations and government agencies. [XBRLINT01]
XBRL can be distinguished into two variants:
- XBRL Financial Reporting (FR)
- XBRL Global Ledger or XBRL General Ledger (GL)
XBRL FR is designed for external reporting, while XBRL GL makes it possible to record and exchange transactions of the general ledger and to zoom in on the data to a lower level of detail [XBRLNL01]. It could be said that the focus of XBRL GL is more focused towards the internal organization. XBRL GL is in an earlier phase of development, compared to XBRL FR, but in the future it could be of great help for integration and audit purposes.
When XBRL is mentioned, it usually refers to XBRL FR. No exception is made in this paper. XBRL GL is referenced in this paper with the full name XBRL GL.
2.2.2 The history of XBRL
The website of XBRL international [XBRLINT01] gives a very complete overview of the early history of XBRL. Much of the following information has been retrieved from the mentioned website.
The foundation of XBRL began in April 1998. In that year, Charles Hoffman, a certified public accountant with the firm Knight Vale & Gregory in Tacoma, Washington investigates how XML could be used for electronic reporting of financial information. He began to develop prototypes of financial statements and audit schedules using XML.
In July of that year, Hoffman informed the AICPA (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants) about the potential of XML for financial reporting. The AICPA decided to start a project and developed a prototype that was finished in December 1998.
In January 1999, the AICPA stated that such a technology for electronic reporting of financial information is important for the accounting profession. A business plan for the further development was created in June of that year. The new prototype was completed in October 1999. In August the AICPA announced that an XML financial reporting specification would be developed. Twelve companies also joined the group.
The first press conference was held in April 2000. During the press conference, they announced that the new name for the technology is XBRL. In July, the fist specification (1.0) of XBRL was released. One month later, Bill Gates stated that XML is the nest revolution on the internet. This was a big step forward, because it means that XML tools will be more and more integrated in (and supported by) products of Microsoft.
2001 was the year of further improvements and the first pilot test. In June it was announced that the XBRL specification is modified to reflect W3C (World Wide Web consortium) recommendations, so that the standard would be consistent. In that month, it is also announced that XBRL-GL for the general ledger will be developed. This created a bridge between transaction reporting in the general ledger and business reporting in the form of XBRL. In October, seven jurisdictions are formed including XBRL-Netherlands. XBRL 2.0 was released in December 2001. Also in December the first pilot had been started in the banking industry.
In May 2003, during the 7th XBRL international conference in Amsterdam, the Dutch tax authority, the central bank and the bureau of statistics outlined their interests in XBRL.
In April 2004, the Dutch government stated that XBRL would be used for reducing administrational burdens of organizations [COMP01]. In September 2004, XBRL-US presented new taxonomies that support the US GAAP.
2006 was the year that the first version of the Dutch taxonomy (NTP taxonomy) was released; version 0.9 of the NTP was released in January. [XBRLNTP01]
The US SEC mandated the 500 largest U.S. companies to use XBRL in May 2008. In December that year, a group of five Dutch accounting organizations and two software companies signed a covenant and agree thereby to deliver 500 shortened profit declarations (‘verkorte winstaangifte’) in XBRL in the Netherlands during the following year [XBRLNTP02].
In 2009, three Dutch banks (the ABN Amro, ING and Rabobank) had announced that they would support XBRL for credit reporting after April 2010. [COMP02]
2.2.3 The structure of XBRL
This subchapter briefly describes the elements of XBRL and how it works. The goal of this subchapter is to become familiar with the working and possibilities of XBRL.