Boundary objects: technology in the creative construction of electronic
business reporting?
by
Alan Lowe
Finance, Accounting and Law Group
Aston Business School
Birmingham
B4 7ET
email: a.d.lowe@aston.ac.uk
Joanne Locke
Birmingham Business School
Edgbaston Park Road,
Birmingham
B15 2TT
email: j.locke@bham.ac.uk
Maceij Piechocki
IFRS Foundation
London
Paper for presentation at the Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Accounting conference
2012
Boundary objects: technology in the creative construction of electronic
business reporting?
Abstract
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the United States mandated a new
digital reporting system for US companies in late 2008. The new generation of
information provision has been dubbed by Chairman Cox, ‘interactive data’ (SEC, 2006).
Since the SEC became interested in XBRL, subsequently interactive data in the early
2000s it clearly became an aim both of, the SEC, and other key institutional stakeholders,
that interactive data become an essential element of financial reporting and a key part of
the developing infrastructure standard for internet based financial reporting.
We examine an aspect of the activities of a group of developers engaged in the
construction of the IFRS XBRL taxonomy. Our theoretical framework is provides by a
broadly practice theory perspective from a number of writers who are associated with the
practice turn in social science (Knorr Cetina, 1999, 2001; Latour, 2005). Our research
has focused on a key aspect in the development of interactive data technology which
many see as an important device for addressing the problems of the financial markets.
While ostensibly the technology is a neutral conveyor of accounting and business
information into the markets and to investors we would argue that its effects on the future
of business reporting are themselves constructing new ways of seeing and representing
accounting information.
Boundary objects: technology in the creative construction of electronic
business reporting?
Introduction
Interactive data is the Security and Exchange Commission’s recently mandated system
for the electronic communication of company reports (SEC, 2008). The reporting
technology is based on extensible business reporting language (XBRL). The nature and
implications of interactive data, its impact on reporting and the financial markets more
generally, are fundamentally shaped by the functionality of its core technology and the
institutional arrangements surrounding its deployment. This paper examines some of the
behind the scenes activity that has enabled the emergence of this new reporting
technology. Our aim is to describe and reveal some of the critical processes and
technologies that must be engaged and developed in order to provide the necessary mix
of expertise and knowledge to construct an infrastructure standard. It is clearly an aim of,
the SEC, and other key institutional stakeholders, that interactive data become an
essential element, or infrastructure standard, along with other accounting and regulatory
standards in internet based financial reporting.
Many years of intense effort on behalf of the XBRL community was rewarded on
December 17th, 2008 when the Commissioners of the SEC voted to mandate interactive
data (SEC, 2008). The final rule ‘Interactive Data to Improve Financial Reporting’
published on 30th January 2009 describes the purpose as being:
... to provide financial statement information in a form that is intended to
improve its usefulness to investors. In this format, financial statement
information could be downloaded directly into spreadsheets, analyzed in a
variety of ways using commercial off-the-shelf software, and used within
investment models in other software formats. (p.1)
The focus of this paper is on aspects of the development of digital business reporting and
actual and potential changes in the regulatory environment. The intention is to provide
theoretically based speculations as to why relatively pragmatic accounting approaches to
the representation of business data may be changed dramatically as digital reporting and a
culture of atomistic data analysis threatens to take precedence over accounting
knowledge and conventional accounting statements.
We analyse SEC pronouncements and other empirical sources in an examination of the
development of interactive data. We focus attention in particular on the use some
advanced digital communication media that have been adopted by certain groups of
developers involved in the construction of the XBRL international financial reporting
standards (IFRS) taxonomy. The digital technologies we have studied such as TRAX
offers software solutions for digital messaging, collaboration, group scheduling, and
contact management. In the paper we outline the use of systems like TRAX using
empirical data and reflect on our increasing reliance on digital media for communication
and especially for mediation and decision support devices in the construction and
development of complex technologies such as interactive data.
Our theoretical framework is provides by a broadly practice theory perspective from a
number of writers who are associated with the practice turn in social science (Knorr
Cetina, 1999, 2001; Lash, 2001; Latour, 2005, Law, 1999) and organisation theory (see
Orlikowski, 2010 for a review). Our analysis and theorisations suggest that the
representation of business and accounting data in traditional statement formats is under
threat and is likely to be replaced by new digital technologies and related analysis
techniques. We have reservations about how this will impact the performance of the
financial system as it will inevitably impact on how accounting data is reported and likely
have an impact on user understandings.
Section two presents a brief discussion on the role of technology objects in the fabrication
of social infrastructure. In section three we further examine the literature on knowledge
object by considering the influence of boundary objects. Section four introduces the
SEC’s interactive data reporting project and outlines the role of information
communication technologies (ICTs) in the development of interactive data and its
significance for accounting and business reporting. Section five focuses more directly on
the relationships involved in developing and supporting these new reporting technologies
using subsidiary ICT technologies. In the discussion we briefly discuss the importance of
collaboration between IS and accounting specialists and outline some concerns on the
threat to conventional accounting reporting. Finally we present our concluding remarks.
Regimes, Infrastructure and Technology
Society has become increasingly complex over time (Beniger, 1986; Elias, 1982; Lash,
2001) and some of this complexity is reflected in the increased reliance of human actors
on objects (Bloomfield et al, 1997; Knorr Cetina, 1999; Law, 1999). This complexity is
also reflected in increased specialization of labour, seen in the proliferation of trades,
professions and occupations generally. Latour (2005) argues that while conventional
sociology has dealt effectively with the duality of structure and agency, the discipline has
almost entirely neglected the material nature of modern societies. Latour argues that only
actor-network theory (ANT) has the techniques to rebalance this neglect. A number of
writers (1999, 2001) have noted the role of objects in enabling the structuring and agency
of human beings in society.
Human beings in modern societies do not live in a biotope, but in a technotope. We are
surrounded by technologies and material contexts, ranging from buildings, roads,
elevators, appliances, etc. These technologies are not only neutral instruments, but also
shape our perceptions, behavioural patterns and activities (Geels, 2004, p.903)
Social networks have lengthened as the number of discrete social groups has increased.
At the same time ‘techno-scientific knowledge has become more distributed over a
widening range of actors (universities, laboratories, consultancies, R&D units in firms)
… [and] the production of cultural and symbolic meanings involves an increasing range
of mass media (newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, internet’ (Geels, 2004, p.901).
Research that seeks to deploy a socio-technical perspective as in ANT must as part of its
agenda seek to identify social networks and how actors are able to work across the
boundaries between these social networks and groups. This is not to say that ANT is able
to reveal a necessarily lasting structure within the social as the boundaries between social
groups are transient.
This dynamic of specialisation and differentiation means that it is not possible to define
boundaries of social networks once and for all. Relationships between social groups shift
over time and new groups emerge … This means that boundary definition is more an
empirical issue than a theoretical one (Geels, 2004, p.901).
In a conceptualization close to the ideas of institutional theory Geels argues that ‘… rules
are not just shared in social groups and carried inside actors' heads, but … also be
embedded in artifacts [objects] and practices’ (Geels, 2004, p.901). Such concepts
suggest that combining ideas from other methodological traditions, such as institutional
theory and ANT can help explain the relationships that facilitate or militate against
innovation in both the development of hard technology and information communication
technologies (ICT) (Geels, 2004). In this regard a number of writers have examined
aspects of how different social groups, or epistemic cultures, have been able to cooperate
in order to make progress in the development of technology (Akrich, 1992; Knorr Cetina,
1999; Hughes, 1994; Latour, 1996; Law, 1986) or product innovation (Carlile, 2002,
2004).
Geels also recognizes the inertia in society, we might see this as part of the structure or
structuration (Giddens, 1994). Again this can be conceptualized as involving the material
elements that we have already identified. The complementarities among technologies and
components are important sources of stability and inertia in the system (Arthur, 1988;
Carlile, 2002; Rycroft and Kash, 2002). A closely related concept which other writers
refer to in technological systems change is that of network externality (Shapiro and
Varian, 1999; Stango, 2004). Network externality refers to a more restricted idea about
the manner in which new technologies face impediments when compared to the existing
technological standard (ref). Here we are focussing more particularly on the interactions
among different technologies, standards or at the component level. These interactions
often produce interdependencies that tend to militate against innovation (Carlile, 2002).
… system interdependence is a powerful obstacle for the emergence and
incorporation of radical innovations. The stability is often formalised in
compatibility standards. Material artifacts are also stabilised because they are
embedded in society; hence the term socio-technical systems. People adapt their
lifestyles to artifacts, new infrastructures are created, industrial supply chains
emerge, making it part of the economic system dependent on the artifact (Geels,
2004, p.911, emphasis added).
There are a number of complex ideas combined in the above quote. The embedding of
objects in society and the way in which ‘people adapt their lifestyles to artifacts’, is a
concept discussed by a number of writers (Latour, 1996, 2005, Akrich, 1992; Knorr
Cetina, 1999, 2001; Hughes, 1994; Law, 1999) while others focus much more on the
creation of ‘new infrastructures’ and boundary objects (Bowker and Star, 1999; Star,
1994; Star and Greisemer, 1989). We will also pick up on the idea of standards and the
stability they introduce into socio-technical systems later in the paper. These latter ideas
are described in other literature as ‘path dependencies’ (Garud & Karnøe, 2003;
Schilling, 1998). It can be observed that path dependency tends to provide a powerful
incentive for incremental, rather than radical, innovations in socio-technical systems
(Dosi, 1982; see also Freeman and Louya, 2001). These rigidities can produce technology
trajectories and infrastructures that may be quite stubborn (Bowker and Star, 1999; Geels,
2004).
Boundary Objects
The concept of ‘boundary objects’ has a significant history in the sociology and social
study of science literature. Star and Griesemer (1989) use the concept to enable them to
add structure to the more general process of translation (Callon, 1986; Latour, 1987). The
incorporation of ‘boundary objects’ enables Star and Griesemer to provide a more
structured framework within which they are able to describe the broader translation
process. These authors use the ‘boundary object’ concept to provide receptacles into
which they are able to categorise different objects and practices that are
…plastic enough to adapt to local needs … yet robust enough to maintain a
common identity … weakly structured in common use, and become strongly
structured in individual site use. These objects may be abstract or concrete. They
have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is common
enough to make them … recognisable (Ibid, p.393, emphasis added)
Boundary objects which are able to display these attributes contribute to the translation
and interessement (Callon, 1986; Latour, 1987) of actors and perhaps actants with
differing interests and from different social ‘worlds’. Star and Griesemer state “that the
trick of translation required two things: … developing a clear set of [standardizing]
methods to ‘discipline’ the information obtained … and [the] generat[ion] … of boundary
objects [to] maximise … autonomy and the communication between the … worlds (p.404,
emphasis added).” According to Star and Griesemer the boundary objects they identify
and describe operate to preserve autonomy and most importantly from our perspective to
enable good communication across otherwise obdurate social boundaries.
Star and Griesemer identify four types of boundary objects. As indicated above Star and
Griesemer present these four types as analytical distinctions – that are not homogeneous
but are intended to assist “researchers to define [the] conceptual and technical work
space” (Fujimora, 1992, note 10, 169) which is the focus of their research. The four types
are described below:
Table 1: Boundary Objects Types
Repositories These contain ordered collections of objects which are indexed in a
standardized fashion. Examples of repositories include libraries and
museums. The repository has the advantage of being modular and
standardized in some way.
Ideal type
These objects include diagrams and representations. An atlas, an
accounting report or perhaps a depiction of a weapon of mass destruction
would be examples. These are transportable and easily communicated.
They can be adapted to new circumstances or new contexts – by adapting
the rules of representation they use to a new setting. Ideal types arise as a
result of abstraction. Star and Griesemer argue that they “result in the
deletion of local contingencies from the common object and have the
advantage of adaptability (Ibid, p 410).
Coincident
Star and Griesemer describe these as common objects which have the
same boundaries but different internal contents. Here they use maps as an
boundaries
example. A map they argue may be of the came geographical area but can
be used to show very different objects. Star and Griesemer note the very
different maps that were drawn by amateur collectors in their study and
contrast this with those used by professional biologists. Equally we might
speculate about the differences that might exist in formal budget reports as
compared to those compiled by individual managers on ‘the back of an
envelope’.
Star and Griesemer argue that such devices enable “different means of
aggregating data … result[ing]… in different sites and with different
perspectives … conducted autonomously while cooperating parties share a
common referent [and the] … resolution of different goals (Ibid, p 411).
Standardized These are boundary objects devised as methods of common
communication across dispersed work groups. Because the natural history
forms
work took place at highly distributed sites by a number of different people,
standardized methods were essential, as discussed above. In the case of the
amateur collectors, they were provided with a form to fill out when they
obtained an animal, standardized in the information it collected. Star and
Griesemer associate this last type of object with Latour’s 'immutable
mobiles' – but this seems an unreasonable assertion. In fact there might be
a closer fit between 'immutable mobiles' and the ideal type. At the very
least there is some confusion here since 'immutable mobiles' certainly
exhibit aspects of both ideal types and standardized forms.
adapted from Star and Griesemer, 1989, p410/411
The results of this type of boundary object are standardized indexes and what Latour
would call 'immutable mobiles' (objects which can be transported over a long distance
and convey unchanging information). The advantages of such objects are that local
uncertainties (for instance, in the collecting of animal species) are avoided.
Fujimora argues that the boundary object or ‘standardized package’ “is used by
researchers to define conceptual and technical work space which is less abstract, less illstructured, less ambiguous and less amorphous (note 10, 169).” To be of use then
boundary objects and standardized packages must assist the researcher to make sense of
the context of distinct social groups where working across the boundaries between these
groups is the object of study. This works well for Star and Griesemer in their study of the
social and material elements of vertebrate zoology and for Guston (1999) in his study of
technology transfer.
There is reason to believe that boundary objects will be valuable to disparate researchers
but it is clear that care must be taken in their creation or fabrication. It is hard to see how
‘visionary objects’ can fit the bill given the focus of the concept we outlined before. If the
aim of these ‘objects’ is to explain how communication can be achieved in the face of
disparate understandings, cultures and epistemologies it’s hard to accept that we can
create boundary objects that are themselves supposed to contain such ‘facts’ as corporate
vision and enable the communication process itself. What our boundary objects should be
doing is helping to explain how social groups, groups of managers or different
organisations (see Guston, 1999; Moore, 1996; Star and Griesemer, 1989) are able to
communicate in spite of differing visions or objectives, social and work practices. In this
view boundary objects would include those devices and resources that are used to make
vision statements ‘real’ to groups of managers and workers who’s perspectives, social
background, attitudes to the organization and work are often so very different.
Boundary Objects in the Creation of Interactive Data
In this section we describe some of the key elements of interactive data and its
development over the decade since it was initially conceived. Interactive data was the
name that has been adopted and approved by the SEC in its more recent policy statements
in the area (Ibid, 2008). The main institution which has overseen the development of
interactive data is XBRL International (XII). The name of the institution is taken from the
technology itself - extensible business reporting language (XBRL). While the term XBRL
is still in common use to describe the technology among its developers and institutional
supporters less challenging and perhaps more informative labels have become used in
specific instances of its application. In the US - Interactive Data was chosen to identify
the project to digitise reporting, in Australia the umbrella project is called Standard
Business Reporting commonly abbreviated to ABR in The Netherlands the equivalent
project is taking place within a broader whole of government reporting initiative.
Interactive data1, previously known widely as XBRL, has been around in a recognised
form since at least 2000 but has only recently reached the point of adoption on a
significant scale. The key functional difference between XBRL data and the currently
dominant form for electronically exchanging reports, PDF (portable document format) is
that XBRL attaches tags to individual items of data so that they can be accessed and
manipulated without human intervention. PDF on the other hand has gained wide
acceptance based on its delivery of whole documents, accurately recreating the structure
and format of the original document. What was seen as an advantage of PDF has been
recast as standing in the way of effective data retrieval and processing because of the
need for a human to read, interpret and identify the required information from a PDF and
rekey, or cut and paste, it into software (commonly Excel) for analysis. The metaphor of
a barcode is used for XBRL – that is the tags contain information about the concept that
the data is an exemplar of and so the computer can process a request for all data relating
to that concept.
An example will help to clarify the difference. If an individual wished to compare the
financial performance of two companies using PDF then they would first need to locate
the two PDF documents. Searching the web for the 2008 annual reports by company
name is unlikely to return a correct hit in the first search page. A more successful strategy
is likely to be to identify the companies’ web-sites, navigate to the investor relations
section and download the PDFs from there. The investor is then in possession of the full
annual report and able to browse or analyse it for financial and non-financial information
relating to performance as it is required to be provided through legislation and the
accounting standards of the relevant jurisdiction2.
One of the items of information that
may be of interest is the net profit before tax. The user would need to either do a word
search or browse the report (perhaps using the index) for the information. If using a word
search, the search will not be successful if there is not a precise match between the user’s
1
There is an issue about whether or not XBRL ‘tagging’ makes data actually interactive in the dictionary
sense of the word (Locke, Lymer and Lowe, 2010). Other jurisdictions, such as Australia and the
Netherlands have adopted the term ‘Standard Business Reporting’. This similarly suffers from the
technical problem that XBRL does not in itself require standardisation, since the taxonomies are
extensible.
2
To the extent that the company has complied with those requirements.
term for what they are searching and the term used by the company (eg surplus, earnings,
etc.).
In contrast, a user who wanted to evaluate the financial performance of two companies
using XBRL tagged (interactive data) could (someday in the near future) conduct a web
search for the exact concepts they were interested in defined by standardised tags. Net
profit, regardless of what term (label) was used by the company – if tagged correctly –
would be returned directly in the search. This ‘empowers’ the user to extract selected
concepts and (in the near future) download them directly into software (for example
Excel) for analysis. The SEC argues that interactive technology allows ‘investors to ...
compare ... the results of ... companies, performance in past years, industry averages’ by
enabling them to ‘pinpoint the facts and figures trapped in today's often lengthy
disclosure documents. (http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/xbrl.shtml)
Interactive data is part of a reporting infrastructure (Bowker & Star, 1999) that can
become opaque (Latour, 1987, 2005). Our intention in this paper is to describe some of
the opaque systems that have served as critical technologies in supporting groups of
experts to communicate and build the necessary XBRL standard and interactive data
technologies. In trying to achieve this we will make use of an in-depth knowledge of the
technology and the development of the XBRL community over time.
Our theorisation will be based primarily on a framework that uses ANT and emphasises
the role of knowledge objects. In particular we will apply ideas about the role of
boundary objects (Carlile, 2002, 2004; Bowker and Star, 1999; Star and Greisemer,
1989). We will examine examples of the use of information communication technologies
(ICTs) and other heterogeneous amalgamations of people and technology to explain how
such objects have combined in the production of these complex technical standards for
business reporting. We will use the boundary object idea at various levels to explain
aspects of the changes and developments surrounding XBRL. The idea will be to take
XBRL as an exemplar ‘translation’ technology and so an ideal subject to be considered as
a boundary object itself but we will focus more directly on the role of what might be seen
as a lower level boundary object in the construction of XBRL.
Boundary objects are constructed, either consciously or unconsciously, to enable
communication across otherwise obdurate boundaries among social groups. In our
theorisations we will be extending the view of the development of XBRL and the XBRL
community to examine boundary objects that have played a part in the ‘diffusion’ of
XBRL. The focus of the paper will be on what devices and/or technologies have been
implicated in the ‘spread’ of XBRL; which groups has constructed these technologies and
the extent they been picked up and used by others. The technology is not our sole
interest; the discussion will be placed in the context of how the human actors have
developed a community around XBRL and the role of technologies deployed to support
that development. Thus the focus will be on the technology, the knowledge objects and
human interaction with these objects. These various technology objects include: XBRL
taxonomies; applications software such as Dragontag and TRAX; and diagrams that recur
in publications or on websites and websites themselves. In the following section we focus
on the use of the TRAX system. We describe some of its features and later provide a
tentative theorisation of its impact on the development of XBRL.
Standardised technology objects in the construction of XBRL data standards:
The TRAX System
In this section we describe some of the key technology tools that mediate interactions
among XBRL standard setters and technicians. We identify some of the key features of
the tools and provide some simple illustrations of how they are used. We argue that these
tools are examples of the boundary objects that have been mobilised in the efforts of the
XBRL community to administer some of the complex interrelations that occur during the
construction or extension of the reporting technology. These epistemic boundary objects
also provide the platforms that enable some degree of co-operation and sharing of
knowledge among the groups involved in the various XBRL technology building
processes.
Context for the operation of boundary objects - XBRL’s first incarnation was formally
recognised in 1998 with the first XBRL specification 1.0 and has continuously evolved
since then (Hoffman 2006). In the course of evolution much has changed about the
technology and in regard to its use and future use. The original intention for the
technology was to provide a standardising reporting that would make intra-organisational
accounting more efficient and accessible. More recently and certainly in the period since
2004 the focus has changed significantly such that a focus of the use of the technology
for reporting to regulators has become the primary objective. There is much more to the
global story of how the XBRL technology has been influenced by, at times isolated and
perhaps idiosyncratic changes in different international jurisdictions. It is not the aim of
this paper to examine the temporal development of XBRL (for a partial discussion of
development in the US and European jurisdictions see Locke et al, 2010). This would
require much more space than is available here.
It should be recognised that the development of the technology has been ongoing since
1998 and has involved many different actants and actors across the world. We would see
the development as being emergent and unpredictable. In this paper we examine some of
the more recent attempts to make the development of the technology more predictable
and consider some of the likely effects of these developments.
Taxonomy development - While significant development of XBRL has taken place in
the West there have been significant applications of the technology around the world.
Part of the complexity of XBRL relates the complexity of accounting rules and
differences in and differences in accounting rules and regulations in different national and
international jurisdictions. These differences are partly reflected in the existence and
continued proliferation of XBRL taxonomies which are designed for use under differing
regimens or in different industries. In part our discussion will be in regard to the
practices that have developed around the construction and attempts to standardise these
taxonomies and the work practices that surround their development and construction.
Broadly the development of alternative taxonomies reflects various Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP) structures and associated XBRL specifications. It has
been suggested that an important aspect of market acceptance for XBRL is the
development of XBRL taxonomies in order to standardise business reporting in various
national jurisdictions and specific industry domains (Debreceny and Gray 2001, Hoffman
2006, p. 66). In developments in the early 2000s the high instability of XBRL
specifications led to various problems in continuity of the technology. This instability
also reduced the need for more robust information feedback systems on the taxonomy
that were developed. Since the emergence of a stable XBRL specification [2.1, in 200?]
most taxonomies now have several release versions and their adoption and usage has
prompted a call both for more feedback on the performance of these systems and to track
the complex development process required to produce each taxonomy versions. We
examine later some of the properties of these tracking systems and their role as boundary
objects.
Analysis of the development processes of some of the most significant taxonomies
appears to suggest three conclusions: (i) taxonomy development requires a great deal of
time and resources; (ii) taxonomies are often finalised for release beyond their predefined deadlines and (iii) taxonomies are typically released with a number of errors still
remaining. An example of the occurrence of (i) and (ii) can be observed in an
incremental upgrade to the most important international XBRL taxonomy in 2006. The
International Financial Reporting Standards for General Purpose (IFRS-GP) taxonomy of
the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation (IASCF) to account for
new disclosure requirements the reporting year scheduled for 01 January 2006 was
released on 15 August 2006. Similarly, the migration of German accounting principles
taxonomy from XBRL 2.0 to the XBRL 2.1 specification, released on 31 December
2003, was only accomplished in 2007. The FINREP [Financial Reporting System]
taxonomy of the Central European Banking Supervisors based on the regulations being in
place at the beginning of 2006 was released in September 2006.
In relation to point (iii) - release with errors - a number of errors have been reported with
the IFRS taxonomy since its introduction. In response the IASCF implemented a
dedicated reporting tool - the ‘bugs and issues tracing system for the IFRS taxonomy’
where a significant number of entries have been made (IASCF 2006). It is also possible
to observe XBRL mailing lists and taxonomy publication websites where a number of
errors, issues and bugs have regularly reported after the release date of the taxonomy
concerned. For example under COREP [Common Reporting System of the Central
European Banking Supervisors] a list of all fixed bugs is published from the last version
at the time of the release of a new taxonomy.
Taxonomy development and tracking technologies - Most tracking technologies are
designed to support taxonomy development processes and project management, by using
feedback gathering system that target specific taxonomies and their development and user
groups.
Taxonomy usage tends to start immediately after the publication. A maintenance
programme is instituted starts directly publication takes place. The users of the taxonomy
are reporting entities and software vendors who will be building XBRL reporting
capabilities into their software products. Taxonomy maintenance projects require
taxonomy developers to monitor the usage of the taxonomy and track the issues and bugs
that users experience. Feedback from the taxonomy usage and maintenance phase has to
be aggregated so that it can be incorporated in the next version of the information model
in preparation for the development work on and release of the next version of the
taxonomy (Piechocki and Felden 2007).
There are different approaches to the gathering of the feedback during taxonomy usage
and maintenance phase. Because the detection of errors and bugs arises from both users,
domain and technical experts - feedback gathering technology needs to fulfil the
requirements of both groups. In the past one of the most popular feedback gathering
systems was operating a mailing list where issues and bugs were reported. Mailing lists
exist for most of the taxonomy working groups in jurisdictions worldwide3. Such
approaches are flexible and can be easily adopted and are inexpensive to operate and
implement. The disadvantages of mailing lists are twofold. Firstly it is difficult to
associate an email with a certain component of an XBRL taxonomy – which run into the
thousands. Secondly mailing lists are rarely provide the possibility of an organised
discussion.
There are a variety of electronic feedback gathering systems. One of the most popular
systems used mainly in the software engineering space is Bugzilla. Another example of
collaboration of feedback provides is PageSeeder. This system is reported to:
… provide a secure, distributed, collaborative platform which enables reviewers
and editors to easily control the document life cycle process and ensure the
integrity and auditability of the content. (WebOrganic, 2007)
The main functionalities of PageSeeder include managing documents (HTML, Word,
Excel, PDF, etc.) and other annotations contributed by reviewers. Second important
feature of PageSeeder is managing and distributing emails to the groups of people
(Corefiling, 2007). This functionality is similar to the operating of mailing list. However
PageSeeder does not provide XBRL taxonomies commenting possibilities. This was the
major factor behind the introduction of the TRAX system. TRAX is an XBRL taxonomy
review system used during taxonomy usage maintenance phase. TRAX is based on the
PageSeeder system.
TRAX infrastructure is similar to ASP-one4. It can be available as a hosted service with a
web interface. The main features of TRAX are the following:

TRAX does not require advanced IT or XBRL knowledge. For this reason the
system provides a user-friendly interface which is important especially for subject
3
Yahoogroups (discussion/mailing list functionality) are popular and widely used feedback gathering
solution.
4
ASP-One is a software supplier that provides end-to-end hosting solutions. ASP-One’s Exchange hosting
service provides software and hardware solutions for digital messaging, collaboration, group scheduling,
and contact management.
matter experts. In XBRL this group as represented mainly by accountants without
extensive technical background.

TRAX provides two clear interfaces (taxonomy view and review panel) in order
to make providing feedback a straight forward task as well as enable searching
and navigating through XBRL taxonomies.

The feedback gathering mechanism which can be accessed by the mean of the
website as well as directly from an email client.

Organisation of the discussion threads with indication of the work effort done by
single members of the reviewers group and the control over responses to
submitted issues.

Possibility to assign actions by taxonomy moderators depending on the severity of
a bug or an issue. (CoreFiling 2008)
TRAX is a collaborative and web-based system which means a number of users can
register and provide feedback on each XBRL taxonomy component either over a web
interface or via email. Each submitted comment or issue is “seeded” with one taxonomy
component and so are the discussion threads. It enables a structured discussion to be
organised and moderated, as desired, on a single identified issue or taxonomy element.
The submitter of an issue or a comment is also able to assign a priority rating for any
selected issue. TRAX requires a moderator or manager who is responsible for accepting
the severity of the issue, assigning a person who is responsible for the issue and finally
closing each issue after reaching the consensus. If a submitter, domain or technical
experts TRAX user wants to raise and issue or provide feedback on a taxonomy they can
use the taxonomy viewer (Figure 1).
Figure 1. TRAX taxonomy viewer (source: TRAX for the IFRS taxonomy)
The viewer provides a tool to navigate through the taxonomy and into its linkbases5, elements
or their attributes. The TRAX user is then able to place a “seeded” comment next to an
individual item. Each comment is then automatically sent to all users registered for the
review if the particular taxonomy. Other users can reply to the comment either using their
mail system or by logging into the taxonomy viewer via the TRAX system. Another option is
to use TRAX review panel. Figure 2 provides an overview of the review panel which lists the
submitted issues with issue title, description and the name of the person submitting an issue.
It is possible to reply to any comment in a given thread.
In this way TRAX or similar systems can overcome some of the major disadvantages of the
mailing lists. In the mailing lists the moderator needs to organise the discussion, sort the
issues and threads and assign them to a certain taxonomy component as well as close the
issues. TRAX takes over these responsibilities of the moderator allowing him or her focusing
on the flow of the discussion while also ensuring the individual expert user is able to play a
key role in indicating the starting point and issue for discussion.
TRAX and related software technologies provide a linkage between a component of a
taxonomy and the comment itself which enables a potentially much more structured and
focussed discussion. Discussion threads concerning one issue are very similar to internet
blackboards. Additionally when issue is closed there is always the possibility to check the
discussion over the issue again so in this way TRAX provides informal documentation of the
taxonomy development and maintenance process.
5
Linkbases are a collection of Links, which themselves are a collection of locators, arcs, and potentially
resources. Locators are elements that essentially reference a concept and provide an arbitrary label for it. The
XBRL 2.1 specification defines five different kinds of linkbases.
Figure 2. TRAX review space (source: CoreFiling, 2008)
Application of tracking technologies - Today TRAX is in use for several XBRL
taxonomies6. In this section we will briefly discuss the use of TRAX for two important
XBRL taxonomies – International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) taxonomy and
United Stated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles taxonomy (UGT).
Both taxonomies provide feedback possibilities by allowing comment through a TRAX
system which aims to collect a broad range of user and expert comment7. Since the release of
the 2007 UGT taxonomy a significant number of comments were logged on the TRAX
system8. Various people, most of whom are engaged in the taxonomy development process
internationally, must register to use the TRAX system. In order to attract high numbers of
users into providing feedback IFRS and US GAAP taxonomy working groups offer
registration possibilities through their websites. Those who register include both accounting
and information systems experts. On registration these people are assigned specified levels of
rights in the system by the moderator. Most often people are registered at the level of
reviewers or as contributors in a category with slightly less rights.
The average number of contributions varies significantly depending on the profile of the user
and the character of the comment. It is also related to the importance and usage of the
taxonomy itself. It can be observed that some of the users of the TRAX system tend to act
more as an observer, at times, than as a contributor. There are a number of active usercontributors in both taxonomy review groups who provide most of the feedback. These
higher volume contributors are most active in the discussions which take place9.
Users of the system are able to view the taxonomy according to the nature of the issue under
discussion and their preferences. One alternative is to use the ‘calculation viewer’ which
details all characteristics (references, labels, attributes) displayed simultaneously. It has been
reported by users that this feature is useful for resolving disagreements about the treatment of
6
Examples here are the Netherlands Taxonomy Project (NTP), Polish COFINREP Project of the National Bank
of Poland, Polish GAAP taxonomy project of XBRL Poland.
7
On the contrary Polish taxonomy working group runs TRAX which is restricted to the members of this
particular group.
8
In the period December, 10th 2007 and January, 31st 2008 around 250 comments were provided for the US
GAAP taxonomy through the TRAX system.
9
For example out of 318 members of the US GAAP TRAX (as at 31.01.2008) only a small percentage provides
comments (<10%).
taxonomy elements. Also having displayed all presentation and calculation tree elements
allows the discussion to be more focussed and reduces the need for additional explanations10.
Discussion
Knorr Cetina (1999, 2001) argues that contemporary developed societies are increasingly
made up of experts and expert knowledges (see also Giddens, 1994). These groups of experts
develop distinctive ways of constructing knowledge which because of the dependency of
society upon them become reflected in social ideas of what constitutes knowledge. In this
paper we have examined how epistemic knowledge objects are created.
The processes we have described document the role of one specific piece of software – the
TRAX system – that has been deployed in the development and debugging of XBRL
taxonomies. Our theorisation of the practices we have observed leads us to believe that
boundary object are far from the benign positive technologies that have been the subject of
much of the literature (Dechow and Mouritsen, 2005; Carlile, 2002, 2004). Star and
Griesemer and later writers have documented the constructive role played by boundary
objects of various kinds in the creation of larger projects of change and product development
(Carlile, 2002). In our description of the use of TRAX we emphasise the impact on work
practices and the enabling of communication across boundaries. TRAX is not ineffective in
this regard but we harbour concerns for the ability of all groups of professionals to be heard
effectively in a context where some have an advantage over others.
The digital technology we describe in the paper reflect an aspect of our increasing reliance on
digital media for communication and for mediation devices in the construction and
development of complex technologies. In spite of the use of support technologies such as
TRAX our evidence suggest a tendency of IT professionals to see the presentation of
accounting data as a technical issue in their area of expertise, not requiring input from
accountants. Our data suggests that the vast majority of the exchanges in TRAX and in other
fora are from IT professionals rather than accountants. Our concern is that the IT people are
likely to be overrepresented in what appear to be technical decisions about taxonomy
10
Requests for extensive explanations were an additional disadvantage of the mailing list approach. In cases
where users were less familiar with a taxonomy or did not have access to a taxonomy viewers they would make
significant demands on the moderators to provide explanation on a given issues. TRAX provide less
experienced users with a way to navigate in a user-friendly way over different taxonomy structures and views.
development but which nevertheless can have strong effects on how accounting data is
presented and how accounting information comes to be accessed and used.
The new forms of representation, based on interactive data technology, are unlikely to be
controllable by accountants even though broadly they can be seen to draw on a mixture of
accounting and IT expertise in both development and implementation. We recognize that
systems like TRAX are designed to allow the working across traditional professional
boundaries but any such ICT systems do not guarantee an ideal theoretical conversation.
While boundary objects certainly enable and perhaps increase communication across
disparate social and expert groupings they do not guarantee a fair or efficient outcome. Power
relations and inequalities still apply in such situations. The theorisation of our research
evidence suggests a tendency of IT professionals to see the presentation, as opposed to the
collection, analysis and preparation, of accounting data as a technical issue in their area of
expertise, not requiring much input from accountants.
The potential effects of these new combinations of expertise and knowledge are not
predictable as the mixing is of a fundamentally different nature to what we have seen
previously in relation to ERP systems (Locke and Lowe, 2007) or earlier developments of
accounting knowledge and practice. The accounting profession will need to demonstrate
their expertise in the domain of digital accounting data, perhaps by trying to influence or
capture relevant standard setting and guidance processes as they did in order to control the
domain of conventional, statement-based financial reporting.
Concluding Comments
The success of accounting and accounting professionals has been explained in various ways:
by recourse to theories of power (Hopwood, 1987; Jeacle, 2003; Miller and O'Leary, 1987;
Saravanamuthu and Tinker, 2003), the success of the profession (Armstrong, 1985; see also
Anderson-Gough et al, 1998, 2001) and the arguably stultifying nature of institutionalisation of
accounting ideas and routines (Burns, 2000; Covaleski et al, 1993; Covaleski et al, 2003;
Macintosh and Scapens, 1990). This paper has taken a different approach by focussing on
accounting as an expert system and accounting practice as constituting an epistemic culture.
The success of accounting can then be related to its status as an expert system with associated
technologies of knowledge.
In the research we report in this paper we have examined one aspect of this close relation
with symbols and objects of knowledge with which accountants have become so in thrall. We
suggest that this long established and revered from of practical accounting knowledge is
under considerable threat. This threat of change will usher in new ways of reporting and
representing business and accounting information. This may be for the good in some respects
but may also result in more data and a potential loss of meaning as a result. The latest burst
of activity in the adoption and development of ‘interactive data’ by regulators and others
threatens to change accounting in fundamental ways such that the accountants’ fetish with
accounting statements comes under a severe test. The value of the traditional forms of
representation of business information is at risk of obsolescence in the financial markets and
in the regulatory arena as new forms of transmission and ‘rendering’ of digital data emerge.
Our research has focused on aspects of the development or construction of the XBRL
technology which many see as an important device for addressing the problems of the
financial markets. While ostensibly the technology is a neutral conveyor of accounting and
business information into the markets and to investors we would argue that its effects on the
future of business reporting are themselves constructing new ways of seeing and representing
accounting information. Our concern is that efforts of construct the technology will
inevitable change accounting practices and reporting practices which will result in unforeseen
consequences. While currently accounting reporting practices are largely governed by
accounting standards, legislation and various market regulatory practices and rules we
believe that this current system is under threat. The push toward the atomization of
accounting data could easily produce a situation where accounting reports are no longer the
basis of the stability and performance of quoted companies. While there may be advantages
to the currently developing digital reporting system there are also dangers. We believe
insufficient thought has been given to the risk posed to conventional accounting reports.
References
Akrich, M., 1992. The description of technical objects. In: Bijker W.E., Law, J. (Eds.),
Shaping Technology/Building Society:Studies in Sociotechnical Change. The MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 205–224.
Arthur, W.B., 1988. Competing technologies: an overview. In: Dosi, G., Freeman, C.,
Nelson, R., Silverberg, G., Soete, L. (Eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory.
Pinter, London, pp. 590–607.
Beniger, J.R., 1986. The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of the
Information Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA/London, England.
Bloomfield, Brian P., Coombs, Rod, Cooper, David J. and Rea, David (1992) 'Machines and
Manoeuvres: Responsibility Accounting and the Construction of Hospital Information
Systems', Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 2(4): 197-219.
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its
Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carlile, P.R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in
new product development. Organisation Science 13, 442-455.
Carlile, P.R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework
for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organisation Science 15, 555-568.
Corefiling. 2008. TRAX: BUILDING EXPERT COMMUNITIES.
http://www.corefiling.com/products/trax/index.html. Last call 2007-12-26.
Debreceny, R. and G. L. Gray. 2001. The production and use of semantically rich accounting
reports on the Internet: XML and XBRL. International Journal of Accounting
Information Systems 2: 47-74.
Dechow, N., & Mouritsen, J. (2005). Enterprise resource planning systems, management
control and the quest for integration. Accounting, Organizations and Society 30, 691733.
Dosi, G., 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested
interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy 6,
147–162.
Elias, N., 1982. The Civilizing Process: State Formation and Civilization, Basil Blackwell,
Oxford (original publication in German, 1939. Ueber den Prozess der Zivilisation:
Soziogenetische und Psychogenetische Untersuchungen).
Freeman, C., Louça, F., 2001. As Time Goes By: From the Industrial Revolutions to the
Information Revolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Financial Stability Board. Financial Stability Board Reports on Improving Financial
Regulation. 2009 www.financialstabilityboard.org.
Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (2003). Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and embedded
agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32(2), 277-300.
Geels, F.W., 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems Insights
about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy
33 (2004) 897–920
Giddens, A. (1994), "Living in a post-traditional society", in Beck, U., A. Giddens and S.
Lash (Ed.), Reflexive modernization, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp.
Guston, D.H. (1999). Stabilizing the boundary between USA politics and science: The role of
the Office of Technology Transfer as a boundary organization. Social Studies of
Science 29, 87-111.
Hacking, I. (1992), "The self-vindication of the laboratory", in Pickering, A. (Ed.), Science as
practice and culture, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 343-368.
Hoffmann, C. 2006. Financial Reporting Using XBRL: IFRS and US GAAP Edition, Lulu.
Hughes, T.P., 1994. Technological momentum. In: Smith, M.R., Marx, L. (Eds.), Does
Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism. The MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 101–113.
IASCF. 2006. Taxonomy Architecture. http://xbrl.iasb.org/int/fr/ifrs/gp/2006-08-15/2006-0831%20IFRS-GP%202006%20Architecture.pdf. Last call 2007-03-14.
Knorr Cetina, K.D. (1997), "Sociality with objects: Social relations in postsocial knowledge
societies", Theory, Culture & Society, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 1-30.
Knorr Cetina, K.D. (1999), Epistemic cultures, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Knorr Cetina, K (2001) Objectual Practice. in Schatzki, T.R., Knorr Cetina, K. & von
Savigny, E. (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory, 2001, Routledge,
London.
Knorr Cetina, Karin D. and Bruegger, Urs (2002) 'Global Microstructures: The Virtual
Societies of Financial Markets', American Journal of Sociology 107(4): 905-950.
Lash, Scott (2001) 'Technological Forms of Life', Theory, Culture and Society 18(1): 105120.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1999), Pandora's hope. Essays on the reality of science studies., Harvard
University Press., Cambridge, MA
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Law, J. (1986), "On the methods of long distance control: Vessels, navigation and the
Portuguese route to India", in Law, J. (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new
sociology of knowledge? Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp. 234-263.
Law, J. (1999), "After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology", in Law, J. andJ.S. Hassard
(Ed.), Actor network theory: And after, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 1-14.
Locke, J, Lymer, A and Lowe A. 2010 Digital reporting options for Europe: A study of
interactive data from the perspective of non-professional investors, ICAEW, 180
pages.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2010), "Practice in research: phenomenon, perspective and philosophy", in
Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D. and Vaara, E. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of
Strategy as Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK).
Piechocki, M. and Felden, C. 2007. XBRL Taxonomy Engineering. Definition of XBRL
Taxonomy Development Process Model. In: Österle, H.; Schelp, J.; Winter, R.
(Hrsg.): Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Information Systems
(ECIS2007), June 7-9 2007, St. Gallen, Switzerland. University of St. Gallen, pp. 889
- 900
Rycroft, R.W., & Kash, D.E., 2002. Path dependence in the innovation of complex
technologies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 14 (1), 21–35.
Schilling, M. A. (1998). Technological lockout: An integrative model of the economic and
strategic factors driving technological success and failure. Academy of Management
Review, 23(2), 267-284.
SEC. (2006). SEC Offers Incentives for Companies to File Financial Reports with Interactive
Data. from http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2006-7.htm.
SEC. (2008). SEC Approves Interactive Data for Financial Reporting by Public Companies,
Mutual Funds: Press release. December 18, 2008. Retrieved December, 2008, from
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-300.htm.
Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1999). Information rules: A strategic guide to the network
economy. Boston, Ma.: Harvard Business School Press.
Stango, V. (2004). The Economics of Standards Wars. Review of Network Economics, 3(1),
1-19.
Star, S.L. (1996), "Working together: Symbolic interactionism, activity theory, and
information systems", in Engeström, Y. andD. Middleton (Ed.), Cognition and
communication at work, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 296-318.
Star, Susan L. and Griesemer, James R (1989) 'Institutional Ecology, 'Translations and
Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate
Zoology', Social Studies of Science 19(3): 387-420.
WebOrganic. 2007. Collaborative Document Life Cycle Solutions.
http://www.weborganic.com/. Last call 2007-12-26.