especially in the area of XBRL implementation, the task of building XBRL
taxonomy was outsourced to Adobe Systems. XBRL project team mem-
bers at CH worked closely with Adobe Systems to create Adobe Intelligent
Forms (AIFs) to support the fi l
fi ing of the audit-exempt accounts. However,
the strength of the SEC’s IT department to overcome the diffi
c
ffi ulty of tag-
ging thousands of data elements in the corporate fi
filings was evident during
the experimentation and implementation of the voluntary fi lin
fi
g program.
In addition, the phase-in implementation approach allowed the SEC to
focus on a small number of resourceful corporate fi
filers and subsequently to
take on a larger number of small fi
filers.
3.5 Access to External Technical and Non-technical Support
and Information from Stakeholders and Top Government
The strong interest and support of XBRL adoption among XBRL Inter-
national Inc.’s members has contributed to building a “mass” of XBRL
E-Government Adoption of XBRL 205
stakeholders (XBRL Progress Report, 2008). XBRL International has
supported the global adoption of XBRL by building a network of regula-
tors, consulting and accounting fi
firms, providers of information services,
professional bodies and business organizations. This type of networking
has been one of the Critical Success Factors that fostered XBRL adop-
tion at CH and the SEC. This network was represented by a diversified
group of stakeholders, composed of software vendors, professional bodies
(ICAEW, ICAS, and AICPA), XBRL U.S. and XBRL U.K. For example,
CH’s XBRL project manager is an active member of the Steering Commit-
tee of XBRL U.K. In addition, XBRL U.K. provided significant technical
assistance on the presentation and format of XBRL-based Adobe forms.
This type of strategic partnership was evident with the SEC which part-
nered with XBRL U.S. to provide technical assistance with building XBRL
taxonomy structure. In addition, XBRL International provided a critical
informational venue for CH and the SEC to meet with diff eren
ff
t regulatory
adopters to share their XBRL adoption experience during the conferences
organized by XBRL International.
The support extended by top government bodies was a common Success
Factor at both agencies. At CH, legislative approval and advisory support
was acquired from CH’s overseeing top government agency: the Business,
Innovation and Skills (BIS) Department, which played a strategic role in the
decision making process of adopting XBRL. In addition, the BIS provided
CH with the specialized accountancy expertise during the process of design-
ing and building proper data structure and format of XBRL-based Adobe
forms. The former SEC’s Chairman, William Donaldson, saw the potential
of XBRL as early as in 2004, while Chris Cox, a succeeding chairman,
advocated and championed the XBRL adoption process. The E-Govern-
ment Act of 2002 provided the institutional framework that served as the
road map for adopting XBRL at the SEC. The U.S. government, represented
by the Congress, was supportive of disclosing interactive fi
financial data via
the SEC’s Interactive Data Initiative using XBRL. In addition, a generous
fi
financial budget of over $55 million was approved by the U.S. government
to modernize the SEC’s electronic fi l
fi ing systems in 2006, which was lever-
aged to adopt XBRL. Out of this budget ($55 million), $5.5 million was
granted to XBRL U.S. to assist the SEC with building XBRL taxonomy
structure for corporate companies.1
4 RESEARCH
FINDINGS
In this chapter, we have provided a comparative overview of XBRL adop-
tion process at two prominent government agencies in the United King-
dom and the United States with emphasis on the Critical Success Factors
that have impacted this process. Based on the empirical evidence, fi
five main
CSFs were examined. The research fi
findings show that CH and the SEC
206 Rania Mousa and Yu-Che Chen
have followed diff eren
ff
t routes towards adopting XBRL. CH has opted for
the voluntary fi
filing of XBRL-based accounts (Adobe forms), while offer-
ing reduced electronic fi
filing fees to encourage presenters to fi
file in XBRL.
The SEC followed a voluntary and then mandatory phase-in approach that
allowed for the incremental adoption of XBRL over the course of 3 years.
The diff
fferences in the adoption approaches refl
flect each agency’s policy in
adopting new technologies as part of its existing legacy reporting system.
At CH, XBRL was viewed as a technical solution rather than a novel tech-
nology that was compatible with CH’s existing web and electronic fi lin
fi
g
facilities. By law, small companies have to present annually their audit-
exempt accounts to CH, and CH successfully made the business case for
small companies’ presenters to fi
file these accounts electronically. CH did
not see the need to mandate XBRL fi
filing, as it was introduced inherently in
the Adobe forms, in which XBRL data were embedded. Small companies’
presenters were already accustomed to the utilization of CH’s electronic
fi
filing facilities, so CH did not need to push any further for mandating
XBRL. At the SEC, the phase-in approach allowed the SEC to focus on the
corporate users’ needs, widen the scale of XBRL implementation and eventu-
ally alleviate corporate users’ concerns about their readability to fi
file in XBRL.
As corporate fi
filers were ready to confi
figure their fi
filing systems to be
XBRL-compatible, the SEC gradually moved to the next stage and applied
XBRL mandate to provide the required legal authorization of XBRL usage.
XBRL business case was made for CH and the SEC as XBRL was per-
ceived as a critical component of their regulatory fi
filing systems which
would improve data quality, dissemination and disclosure. This supports
the regulatory provision for pushing the global efforts toward further devel-
opment of XBRL capabilities to streamline government operations. The
SEC was mainly driven by improving the quality of the data dissemina-
tion and disclosure, while CH viewed XBRL as a reporting medium that
facilitates capturing and manipulating XBRL data, which could be sold to
diff
fferent Internet users and data aggregators. This difference refl ec
fl ts the
varying nature and mission of each government agency’s data management
policy. SEC strictly uses data for fi
filing and disclosure, while CH discloses
basic business data to the general public, while selling other bulk data to
potential data aggregators. It w
as also found that XBRL compatibility to
CH and the SEC’s electronic fi
filing systems was an integral part of XBRL
business case for both agencies, which facilitated the XBRL adoption pro-
cesses at both agencies.
A significant fi
finding in the comparative assessment highlights each agen-
cy’s technical capabilities. While CH struggled with acquiring and retain-
ing technical experts, the SEC was strongly equipped with a full-fl edg
fl
ed
IT and service support departments. Given the lack of CH’s technical
expertise, the task of building XBRL taxonomy structure was outsourced,
while the SEC relied on its in-house experts to develop XBRL taxonomy,
in collaboration with members from XBRL U.S. Despite CH’s ability to
E-Government Adoption of XBRL 207
overcome the shortage in technical skills, it is important to note that CH’s
reliance on outsourcing could potentially undermine the agency’s ability
to strengthen its own IT department. Such a weakness could have its own
future ramifi
fications, as CH plans to expand the use of XBRL for the fi lin
fi
g
of large companies’ audited accounts, which contain thousands of data ele-
ments that need to be tagged.
Stakeholders’ participation was found to be a key Success factor. The
literature highlights the signifi
ficance of having top government support,
which facilitates the allocation of needed resources to drive e-government
initiatives. Top government support was represented by the strategic assis-
tance extended by the BIS and the U.S. government offi
c
ffi ials who pro-
vided appropriate technical and fi
financial support to CH and the SEC,
respectively. Several IT experts at government agencies, represented by
the IT professionals at the SEC, and those at the private-sector software
industry, represented by Adobe Systems, were among the most important
providers of external technical support during the XBRL adoption pro-
cess. Through formulating strategic partnerships with several members at
XBRL U.S. and XBRL U.K., CH and the SEC managed to acquire and
complement specialized technical expertise, which expedited the process
of implementing XBRL.
5 CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
It can be concluded that the assessment of the Critical Success Factors
across CH and the SEC provides an insightful comparative overview of the
XBRL adoption process. The fi
findings of this research support the impor-
tance of overcoming technical complexities, mobilizing organizational and
technical resources, making the technology business case for the adopting
agencies and potential stakeholders and seeking external support through
building strategic partnerships with public and private-sector organiza-
tions. Understanding the Critical Success Factors encountered in adopting
electronic government initiatives is a high priority for policy makers. This
was evident at CH and the SEC which recognized the functionalities of
XBRL as a remarkable data reporting and processing tool that transformed
the electronic fi
filing process and enhanced their e-government efforts. The
process of adopting XBRL and identifying the Critical Success Factors
aff
ffecting it highlight the importance of electronic reporting technologies to
government agencies, and the applicability of the CSFs in devising strategic
action plans for developing potential large-scale government projects in dif-
ferent national contexts.
This research has generated several practical management recommenda-
tions. We suggest that a broader critical mass of existing XBRL regulatory
adopters and stakeholders is essential for fostering the XBRL adoption pro-
cess for any future XBRL adopter. Evidence also suggests that strengthening
208 Rania Mousa and Yu-Che Chen
the in-house technical capabilities of government agencies is an important
driving force in e-government adoption. If technical capacities continue to
be lacking, the process of adopting e-government initiatives could be severely
undermined. Heightened awareness campaigns featuring success stories of
XBRL adoption and building successful business partnerships are important
catalysts in the adoption and development of sustainable e-government.
NOTES
1.
http://www.cpa2biz.com/Content/media/PRODUCER_CONTENT/News-
letters/Articles_2007/CorpFin/Serious_About_XBRL.jsp
REFERENCES
Ambite, J.L., Y. Arens, L. Gravano, V. Hatzivassiloglou, E.H. Hovy, J.L. Kla-
vans, A.Philpot, U. Ramachandran, K. Ross, J. Sandhaus, D. Sarioz, A. Singla,
and B. Whitman.2002. Data Integration and Access: The Digital Government
Research Center’s EnergyData Collection (EDC) Project, In W. McIver and A.K.
Elmagarmid (Eds.), Advances inDigital Government: Technology, Human Fac-
tors and Policy (pp. 85–106). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Barret, K. and Green, R. (2001). Powering up: How public managers can take
control of information technology. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Boyd, G. (2004). XBRL in New Zealand—Past, present and future. Chartered
Accountants Journal of New Zealand, 83(3), 9–11.
Brown, M., & Brudney, J. (2001, October). Achieving advanced electronic gov-
ernment services: An examination of obstacles and implications from an
international perspective. Paper presented at the National Public Management
Research Conference, Bloomington, Indiana.
Brudney, J., & Selden, S. (1995). The adoption of innovation by smaller local gov-
ernments. American Review of Public Administration, 25(1), 71–80.
Caff
ffrey, L. (1998). Information sharing between and within governments: A
research group report. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.
Cahill, A., Stevens, J., & Laplante, J. (1990). The utilization of information-systems technology and impact on organizational decision-making. Knowledge-
Creation Diffusion Utilization, 12(1), 53–79.
Cushing, K. (2003, May 20). XBRL is too complex for adoption. Retrieved from
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2003/05/20/194575/XBRL-is-too-
complex-for-adoption.htm
Dawes, S. (1996). Inter-agency information sharing: Expected benefi t
fi s, manage-
able risks. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(3), 377–394.
Dawes, S., & Pardo, T. (2002). Building collaborative digital government systems,
In W. McIver & A. Elmagarmid (Eds.), Advances in digital government, Tech-
nology, human factors, and policy (pp. 259–274). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers.
DeLone, W. & McLean, E. (2003). The DeLone and McLean Model of informa-
tion system success: A ten-year Update . Journal of Management Information
Systems, 19(4), 9–30.
Dembla, P., Palvia, P., Brooks, L., & Krishnan, B. (2003). Adoption of web-based services for transaction processing by organizations: A multilevel contextual
E-Government Adoption of XBRL 209
analysis. Paper presented at the 9th Americas Conference on Informa
tion Sys-
tems, Tampa, Florida.
Dunne, T., Helliar, C., Lymer, A., & Mousa, R. (2009). XBRL: The views of
stakeholders. ACCA Research Report No. 111. Retrieved from http://www2.
accaglobal.com/pubs/general/activities/library/technology/rr-111– 002.pdf.
Accessed January 27, 2012.
GAO (General Accounting Offi
ffice) (2001). Electronic government: Challenges must
be addressed with eff e
ff ctive leadership and management. Retrieved from http://
www.gao.gov/new.items/d01959t.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2012.
Hampton, P. (2005). Reducing administrative burdens: Eff
ffective inspections and
enforcement. London: HM Treasury.
Heeks, R. (1999). Management information systems in the public sector. In G.
Garson (Ed.), Information technology and computer applications in public
administration (pp.157–173). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
ICAEW (Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales). (2004).
Information for better markets, digital reporting: A progress report. London.
Retrieved from http://www.icaew.com/~/media/Files/Technical/Financial-re-
porting/Information%20for%20better%20markets/IFBM/Digital%20report-
ing%20a%20progress%20report.ashx. Accessed January 27, 2012.
ICAEW (Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales). (2009, Febru-
ary 10). Report by tax faculty on the compulsory online fi l
fi ing of company tax
returns and electronic payment of corporation tax: Draft Legislation. Interac-
tive Data to Improve Financial Reporting: Final Rule (p. 6777).
Irani, Z. (2002). Information systems evaluation: Navigating through the problem
domain. Information and Management, 40(1), 11–24.
Kraemer, K., & King, J. (2003). Information technology and administrative
reform: Will the time after e-government be different? Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California at Irvine.
Kull, J., & Abraham, C. (2008). XBRL & public sector fi n
fi ancial reporting. The
Journal of Government Financial Management, 57(2), 28–32.
Kull, J., Miller, L., St Clair, J., & Savage, M. (2007). Interactive Data—XBRL: A revolutionary idea. The Journal of Government Financial Management, 56(2), 10–14.
Lee, J.-N., Huynh, M., Kwok, R., & Pi, S.-M. (2003). IT sourcing evolution prac-
tices in human resources. Communications of the ACM, 46(5), 84–89.
Melitski, J. (2003). Capacity and e-government performance: An analysis based on
Public Sector Transformation Through E-Government Page 36