2011
Adoption and acceptance of XBRL by
small and medium-sized accounting
organizations in the Netherlands.
Author
Leon Lekkerkerker
314964ll@student.eur.nl
Supervisor
Prof. dr. Gert J. van der Pijl
8-3-2011
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Table of contents
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 5
1.1 THESIS BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 RESEARCH JUSTIFICATION AND OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................................... 5
1.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 6
1.3.1 Choice for a computer delivered survey ................................................................................................ 6
1.4 THESIS STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................................................. 7
2. LITERATURE RESEARCH AND THEORETICAL ORIENTATION ........................................................................... 8
2.1 CHAPTER INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 XBRL FOR DUTCH ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS ..................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Brief overview of XBRL ........................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 The history of XBRL ................................................................................................................................ 9
2.2.3 The structure of XBRL .......................................................................................................................... 10
2.2.4 XBRL in the Netherlands ...................................................................................................................... 13
2.2.5 General advantages and disadvantages of the use of XBRL ............................................................... 18
2.2.6 Processes of accounting organizations and consequences of XBRL .................................................... 19
2.3 THE DUTCH MARKET OF SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS ....................................................... 23
2.3.1 Definition of small and medium sized organizations in the Netherlands ............................................ 23
2.3.2 Branch organizations (professional associations) in the Dutch market of small and medium sized
accounting organizations ............................................................................................................................. 24
2.3.3 The use of XBRL in small and medium sized accounting organizations in the Netherlands ................ 25
2.4 ACCEPTANCE VERSUS ADOPTION ......................................................................................................................... 26
2.4.1 Adoption measurement ....................................................................................................................... 27
2.4.2 Acceptance measurement ................................................................................................................... 27
2.5 ACCEPTANCE MEASUREMENT MODELS ................................................................................................................. 27
2.5.1 Technology acceptance models ........................................................................................................... 27
2.5.2 Reumerman’s integrated model .......................................................................................................... 29
2.4.3 Usage of Reumerman’s integrated model ........................................................................................... 30
2.5 CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................... 31
3. OPERATIONALIZATION OF THEORETICAL ACCEPTANCE FACTORS AND IDENTIFICATION OF RESPONDERS . 34
3.1 CHAPTER INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 34
3.2 THE OPERATIONALIZATION PROCESS ..................................................................................................................... 34
3.3 THE SURVEY DESIGN ......................................................................................................................................... 38
3.4 GENERAL QUESTIONS AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE RESPONDERS................................................................................ 38
3.4.1 Organization size ................................................................................................................................. 39
3.4.2 Fields of activity ................................................................................................................................... 40
3.4.3 Memberships of branch organizations ................................................................................................ 41
3.4.4 Decision about XBRL usage .................................................................................................................. 43
3.5 OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE FACTORS OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ............................................................ 48
3.5.1 Factor: Decision-making structure ...................................................................................................... 48
3.5.2 Factor: Top management support ....................................................................................................... 49
3.5.3 Factor: Goal alignment ........................................................................................................................ 50
3.5.4 Factor: Managerial IT knowledge ........................................................................................................ 51
3.5.5 Factor: Management style .................................................................................................................. 51
3.5.6 Factor: Resources allocation ................................................................................................................ 52
3.6 OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE FACTORS OF THE TECHNOLOGY PERSPECTIVE.................................................................. 53
Leon Lekkerkerker
2
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
3.6.1 Factor: Information system facilities ................................................................................................... 53
3.6.2 Factor: Information system competency ............................................................................................. 54
3.6.3 Factor: Information system integration .............................................................................................. 55
3.6.4 Factor: User support ............................................................................................................................ 55
3.6.5 Factor: Information system structure .................................................................................................. 57
3.7 OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE FACTORS OF THE USER PERSPECTIVE ............................................................................. 57
3.7.1 Factor: Perceived ease of use .............................................................................................................. 57
3.7.2 Factor: Job relevance ........................................................................................................................... 58
3.7.3 Factor: Result demonstrability............................................................................................................. 59
3.7.4 Factor: Output quality ......................................................................................................................... 59
3.7.5 Factor: Subjective norm ....................................................................................................................... 60
3.7.6 Factor: Image ...................................................................................................................................... 61
3.7.7 Factor: Voluntariness ........................................................................................................................... 61
3.8 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACCEPTANCE AND ADOPTION SURVEYS .................................................................. 62
3.9 CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................... 63
4. SURVEY OUTCOMES BY OPERATIONALIZED FACTOR .................................................................................. 64
4.1 CHAPTER INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 64
4.2 SURVEY OUTCOMES FOR THE ORGANIZATIONAL PERSPECTIVE .................................................................................... 65
4.2.1 Overview of the results by operationalized factor ............................................................................... 65
4.2.2 Analysis of the results by operationalized factor ................................................................................. 66
4.3 SURVEY OUTCOMES FOR THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PERSPECTIVE ...................................................................... 68
4.3.1 Overview of the results by operationalized factor ............................................................................... 68
4.3.2 Analysis of the results by operationalized factor ................................................................................. 69
4.4 SURVEY OUTCOMES FOR THE USER PERSPECTIVE ..................................................................................................... 73
4.4.1 Overview of the results by operationalized factor ............................................................................... 73
4.4.2 Analysis of the results by operationalized factor ................................................................................. 74
4.5 CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................... 75
5. ADOPTION OF XBRL .................................................................................................................................... 77
5.1 CHAPTER INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 77
5.2 CURRENT ADOPTION ......................................................................................................................................... 77
5.3 EXPECTED ADOPTION ........................................................................................................................................ 78
5.4 PREDICTED ADOPTION ....................................................................................................................................... 79
5.5 XBRL ADOPTION VERSUS ROGERS ADOPTION CURVE ............................................................................................... 81
5.6 CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................... 82
6. ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL ................................................................................................................................ 84
6.1 CHAPTER INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 84
6.2 CALCULATION OF RESULTS.................................................................................................................................. 84
6.3 XBRL ACCEPTANCE IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ....................................................................................... 84
6.4 XBRL ACCEPTANCE IN THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PERSPECTIVE ......................................................................... 87
6.5 XBRL ACCEPTANCE IN THE USER PERSPECTIVE ........................................................................................................ 90
6.6 XBRL ACCEPTANCE IN GENERAL .......................................................................................................................... 92
6.7 CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................... 94
7. GLOBAL CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH ...................................................................................... 96
7.1 XBRL AND THE DUTCH MARKET OF SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS........................................ 96
7.2 MEASUREMENT OF ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL ...................................................................................... 96
Leon Lekkerkerker
3
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
7.3 ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL ................................................................................................................ 98
7.4 WEAKNESSES IN THIS STUDY ............................................................................................................................. 100
7.5 FURTHER RESEARCH ........................................................................................................................................ 100
8. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 101
APPENDIX A. XBRL SURVEY ‘ARE ACCOUNTANTS AND TAXATION SPECIALISTS READY FOR XBRL?’.............. 104
APPENDIX A.1. NIEUWSBERICHT OP NIVRA WEBSITE ................................................................................................. 104
APPENDIX A.2. ENQUÊTE ...................................................................................................................................... 104
APPENDIX B. CHARTS FOR THE RESULTS BY OPERATIONALIZED ACCEPTANCE FACTORS. ............................. 113
APPENDIX C. CORRELATIONS........................................................................................................................ 121
Leon Lekkerkerker
4
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
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.
Leon Lekkerkerker
5
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
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:
1. What is XBRL and what does it mean for accounting organizations?
2. How does the Dutch small and medium-sized accounting organizations market look like?
3. Which models are available for adoption and acceptance measurement?
4. How could the adoption and acceptance of XBRL be measured for small and medium-sized
accounting organizations in the Netherlands?
5. 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.
Leon Lekkerkerker
6
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
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.
Leon Lekkerkerker
7
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
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.
Leon Lekkerkerker
8
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
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]
Leon Lekkerkerker
9
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
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.
XBRL and XML
XBRL is based on XML (eXtensible Markup Language). XBRL is a markup language, which means that
there is, besides the data available in the document, also metadata in the file. Metadata contains
data (information) about the primary data of the file. An (fictive) example: ‘The Da Vinci Code’ (data)
is the title (metadata) of a book (metadata). The data is positioned between tags that contain the
metadata information. The tags in this example are <book> and <title>.
Example of a XML file:
<book>
<title>The Da Vinci Code</title>
<writer>Dan Brown</writer>
</book>
The tag book explains that data between the opening and closing tag are part of a book.
The title tags show that the data between the opening and closing tag is the title of the book. In this
case ‘The Da Vinci Code’. The next tag is writer. Between these tags is the writer of ‘The Da Vinci
Code’ mentioned, namely ‘Dan Brown’.
In other words could be said that book is an element, while the title and writer are attributes of the
element book.
When we look at XBRL files, it can be said that XBRL files do not only hold the financial data, but also
provide information about this data.
A difference with HTML is that a tag in markup languages (like XML and XBRL), does not describe how
the contents have to appear, which is the case with HTML files.
XBRL taxonomies and instances
XBRL consists of two main components:


XBRL taxonomies
XBRL instances
The difference between these two is that XBRL instances contain the facts being reported while the
taxonomies define the concepts being communicated by the facts. The combination of an XBRL
instance, its supporting taxonomies and additional linkbases constitute an XBRL business report.
[XBRL2.1]
In other words: An instance document contains the facts (data), while taxonomies contain the
explanation of it. The information in taxonomies is closely related to regulations about the definitions
of financial data.
An instance document is an XML file. Elements of the instance document are linked to the
taxonomies. An instance document can contain links to several different taxonomies, or the
taxonomies itself could contain links to other taxonomies. The entire set of linked taxonomies is
Leon Lekkerkerker
10
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
called the discoverable taxonomy set (DTS). The taxonomies and instance document are linked
together with the XML linking (Xlink) technology.
As mentioned earlier, the data in XML files is gathered in the instance file between tags. Information
about what this tag means, and how this should be handled by a computer, are stored in a schema
file. Relationships are described in so called linkbases. There are linkbases for definition, calculation
or presentation. Label linkbases and reference linkbases refer to external resources.
Example of a XML file (continued) :
<book>
<title>The Da Vinci Code</title>
<writer>Dan Brown</writer>
</book>
By reading this file, it is clear that the title of this book is ‘The Da Vinci Code’. We all know what a
title is, but it can be defined for instance as: ‘An identifying name given to a book, play, film, musical
composition, or other work’ [FREEDIC]. This information can be stored in a schema file. The
definition linkbase describes in this situation that ‘An identifying name given to a book, play, film,
musical composition, or other work’ is the definition of the tag title.
A taxonomy contains many schemas and linkbases. The picture below gives an overview of how the
DTS, taxonomy, linkbases and an instance document are related in the XBRL framework.
Figure 1: The structure of XBRL [IASB01]
A more detailed description of structure and fundamentals of the XBRL framework would go beyond
the purpose of this chapter (that is to create a base of information that is sufficient to understand
the global working of XBRL). However, the website of the International Accounting Standard Board
Leon Lekkerkerker
11
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
contains an easy to read and rather detailed description of all the parts of the XBRL framework
[IASB01]. This website is advisable for everyone who is interested in more detailed information about
the XBRL framework.
Mapping
Before an XBRL instance document can be created, the data in the general ledger have to be linked
to the right elements and attributes of the taxonomy. This process is called mapping. The process has
to be carried out once, but has to be repeated when a taxonomy or the structure of the data (that
has to be represented in an instance file) changes. Because of that fact, users will benefit from a
situation where the taxonomy changes as little as possible. Yet, XBRL is still developed and changes
from time to time.
Dutch taxonomy
The Dutch architecture consists of different layered taxonomies (the DTS) and is based on the IFRSGP taxonomy. A Dutch base domain has been built on top of the IFRS-GP taxonomy. Above the base
domain, domain-specific taxonomies built, which are followed by formsets for different parties. All
these taxonomies are (directly or indirectly) linked from the reports (instance documents).
More information about the Dutch architecture can be found in the architecture description of the
Dutch taxonomy project (NTP) [XBRLNTP03].
The following picture provides an overview of the Dutch taxonomy architecture.
Figure 2: The hierarchy of XBRL [XBRLNTP02]
XBRL instances readers
Because of the design of XBRL with different layers, XBRL instances are not as easily readable by
humans as ‘classic’ financial reports that are produced without making use of XBRL. However, to
make XBRL instances easier to read, several parties (for example Hitachi, Invoke or SavaNet) have
Leon Lekkerkerker
12
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
developed XBRL readers that are able to open XBRL instances and able to display information that is
easier to interpreted for humans.
2.2.4 XBRL in the Netherlands
The use of XBRL in the Netherlands will be described in this subchapter, starting with the Dutch
infrastructure for the exchange of XBRL instance documents. The involved parties will also be
described, along with more details about the Dutch government’s decision to lower the
administrative burden of companies.
Exchange process infrastructure
In the Netherlands, generated XBRL instance documents can be sent to demanding organizations via
a government transaction gateway called OverheidsTransactiePoort (OTP). The OTP infrastructure
and its elements will be described in this paragraph. More detailed information about the
infrastructure of the OTP can be found on the website of the Dutch taxonomy project [XBRLNTP04].
At January 11 2010, the OTP is renamed to ‘Digipoort’. However for this thesis, it is referred to as the
OTP, because that is the name that is also used in the survey.
The infrastructure of the government transaction gateway consists of four major parts:




Process server. This is the part of the OTP that is responsible for the right execution of
functions. It triggers one or more services of the OTP to fulfill this task.
Service Bus. The service bus is responsible for the transportation of the data between the
involved parties.
Services. Services are components of the system that perform different type of tasks in the
processes and are triggered by the process server. The services can be divided into internal
and external services.
o Examples of internal services are retrieval, delivery, verification and status
information services. A full list of services and their functions can be found at the
earlier mentioned NTP website [XBRLNTP04].
o External services are provided by external systems and contain authorization and
validation services.
An authorization function has the task to check if the sender is allowed to send a
particular XBRL instance.
Validation services check the XBRL instance at correctness. Checks are technical as
well as logical.
Portal. The portal can be seen as the interface with which the user communicates. Its task is
to handle document (XBRL instance) uploads and to handle return information.
The illustration below shows the different parts of the infrastructure of the government transaction
gateway.
Leon Lekkerkerker
13
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Figure 3: Overview of the OTP. [XBRLNTP04].
Involved parties, their interest and the current situation
The parties in the Netherlands, which are somehow connected to XBRL, could be roughly divided into
two categories.


Users of the XBRL taxonomy, XBRL instances and XBRL systems. These are the organizations
that use XBRL somewhere in their business process. They can be either senders or receivers
(or producers and consumers).
Other involved parties. These organizations contribute to, or influence in some way, the
Dutch development of XBRL.
The accounting organizations, which are the focus of this study, are users of XBRL. The internal
processes of accounting organizations are described later in this chapter. It is also interesting to see
which other stakeholders could be defined, because of the fact that they influence, directly or
indirectly, the accountant organizations.
Stakeholders of XBRL developments in the Netherlands are:
The Dutch government
The Dutch government is involved as regulator, but also through the NTP, their Logius service
(discussed later) and through government organizations that are consumers of XBRL instances.
In January 2007 the government started a project to reduce the administrative burden of Dutch
companies. The target is to reduce 25% of the administrative burdens by reducing costs (less),
simplifying the procedures (easier) and by making the changes tangible and visible (noticeable)
[MINEZPVAR01] and [MINEZVOOR01].
As a result the Dutch government introduced different laws. An interesting one is the ‘simplification
of the annual account for small entrepreneurs’ (‘Vereenvoudiging jaarrekening voor kleine
ondernemers’). This law states that small companies are allowed to publish their annual reports
based on fiscal principles. In the earlier situation, these companies had to publish reports on fiscal
and commercial principles. This law makes the path clear for a higher level of standardization.
Another law is the ‘shortened tax profit declaration’ (‘Verkorte winstaangifte’). This law heavily
reduces the elements and process time of tax declarations. As a part of the ‘administrative burden
reduction’ project, the government decided to extend the use of XBRL in the Netherlands.
XBRL Netherlands
Leon Lekkerkerker
14
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
XBRL Netherlands (XBRL Nederland) is the Dutch organization that is involved with the adoption and
promotion of XBRL in the Netherlands. XBRL Netherlands is the organization that represents the
Netherlands in the steering committee of XBRL International. [XBRLNL01]
Dutch taxonomy project (NTP)
The Dutch taxonomy project organization is responsible for the development of the Dutch
Taxonomy. The Dutch taxonomy is developed together with the government and business
organizations, on the initiative of the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice. A covenant
regulates the rights and duties of the involved parties (government, consuming parties, business
organizations, associations of undertakings, intermediaries and ICT service providers). Ninety parties
are currently signatories of the covenant. [XBRLNTP01]
Logius (former GBO.Overheid)
The government transaction gateway (OTP) is in the first place an initiative of the Dutch government.
Control and administration of the OTP is a task of Logius service organization. This organization is
also responsible for other government related services like DigiD, the ‘overheidsservicebus’ and
‘waarschuwingsdienst.nl’.
Accounting organizations
Accounting organizations are intermediaries in the process of financial reporting. They process
financial data of companies into useful information that is used for internal or external reporting.
They have also an auditing task in the business reporting chain. Impact and changes for accounting
organizations will be discussed further in chapter 2.2.6.
Companies
Companies are directly involved in the XBRL reporting chain when they produce their own XBRL
instances for external reporting, or when they send their own XBRL instance (created by an
intermediary) to consuming parties.
When a company put financial reporting out under contract to an intermediary (and the intermediary
is also responsible for spreading the information), the company is not directly involved in the XBRL
reporting chain. However a company can influence an intermediary with demands of cost reduction
or speed, which could trigger an intermediary to consider the use of XBRL.
Software vendors
Suppliers of software for bookkeeping, reporting and declaration are faced with many changes in
requirements concerning their software. In general it could be said that software vendors have to
implement XBRL in their solutions. In some cases the need for a specific solution domain will
completely appear or disappear. For example, the need for XBRL instance reader solutions appear
and the need for ‘not XBRL enabled’ solutions could disappear over time. Some vendors chose to
extend their software with a broader spectrum of solutions. The changes in the three mentioned
domains (bookkeeping, reporting and declaration) are assessed along with the surrounding processes
of intermediaries in chapter 2.2.6.
As mentioned earlier, the OTP exchange infrastructure is linked to external services. One of these
external service is the Authorization Service Provider (AUSP). At this point in time, there are two
Leon Lekkerkerker
15
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
parties in the Netherlands who offer solutions for authorization. They can also be seen as involved
software vendors. The two parties are CreAim and Diginotar [XBRLNTP04].
Bureau of Statistics (CBS)
As part of the project ‘reduction of administrative burden’, the Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics
(Centraal Bureau Statistieken, CBS) reduces the amount of statistics delivery duties for companies.
[MINEZVOOR01] The CBS also accepts data in XBRL format from companies that do not exceed 50
employees, but only for a limited amount of information request areas. [CBS01]
Chamber of Commerce (KVK)
The Dutch Chamber of Commerce (Kamer van Koophandel, KVK) accepts, as a part of the reduction
of administrative burden, annual accounts in XBRL format. Besides the change in document type, the
choice for XBRL also caused a fundamental change. The KVK only accepted documents that were
created from commercial principles. With the choice for XBRL, the KVK has indirectly chosen for a
fiscal principle, because XBRL is based on the fiscal principle. With the digital delivery, the KVK
intends to save much time and effort in the processing of received annual accounts. [KVK01]
Dutch Tax Office (BD)
The Dutch Tax Office (Belastingdienst, BD) has started a pilot project for the use of shortened profit
declarations. [MINEZVOOR01] The declarations contain heavily reduced amounts of elements
compared to the regular form, and are therefore easier and faster to process. A shortened profit
declaration is almost immediately processed into a final tax assessment.
The manner of auditing of the Tax Office also changes. A new concept of auditing called ‘horizontal
supervision’ (‘horizontaal toezicht’) is introduced. The idea behind horizontal supervision is that the
intermediaries will provide a certain level of assurance. This means that the auditing task will move
from the BD toward the intermediaries.
The Tax Office is also planning to introduce another way of random checks and inspections with the
use of XBRL GL. This XBRL GL technique is (more) suitable to zoom in to lower levels of data, which
can be tested for logical and technical accuracy. This concept of inspection is easier and takes less
time, because it could be automated. [DGLS2009]
The Dutch Employee Insurance organization (UWV)
The Dutch Employee Insurance organization (Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemers Verzekeringen, UWV)
has decided to not support XBRL. The UWV however is a stakeholder, in the sense that they could
influence the developments, for example via requirements if they want to join the XBRL
developments.
Banking organizations
Banking organizations use financial information to calculate the risks for financing credit. Two banks
(ABN AMRO and Rabobank) and two accounting organizations (Gibo groep and ABAB) are working
together to create an extension for the Dutch taxonomy. The extension adds specific information to
the taxonomy that is used by banks to calculate risks. [XBRLMON01] Since April 2010, the ABN AMRO
bank, the ING bank and the Rabobank support XBRL for credit reports. [COMP02]
Leon Lekkerkerker
16
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
The corporate reporting supply chain
The following figure shows the place of different parties in the Corporate Reporting Supply Chain
(CRSC) that shows the process of business reporting.
Figure 4: XBRL and the corporate reporting supply chain. [DGLS2009]
Other Countries
It is interesting to see what the current developments concerning XBRL are in some countries other
than the Netherlands. Below, the developments of three selected countries are described.
Belgium
In Belgium, XBRL is already implemented for the Central Balance Sheet Office (CBSO). Belgian
companies get a 60 Euro discount on the costs for turning in the annual reports in XBRL format. The
CBSO currently receives more than 90% of all the annual accounts in XBRL format. The number of
types of information that may be sent by XBRL instance is still increasing. [XBRLPLAN01]
The situation in Belgium is however different from that in the Netherlands, because the Belgians had
already one principle, instead of the fiscal and commercial principles that are available in the
Netherlands. This makes the change smaller than in the Netherlands. [PLEINP01]
Japan
In Japan, XBRL is used in production at key governmental and public organizations. Projects for the
use of XBRL at EDINET and TDnet listed companies are completed and these companies are required
to submit fillings in XBRL format. XBRL Japan organizes monthly seminars for its members to explore
the advanced use of XBRL. [XBRLPLAN01]
United States of America
As mentioned earlier, the US SEC has mandated the 500 largest U.S. companies to file in XBRL
format. XBRL is also suggested for risk return summary proposals in mutual fund prospectuses and
for credit rating agencies to report rating changes in XBRL format. [XBRLPLAN01]
Leon Lekkerkerker
17
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
2.2.5 General advantages and disadvantages of the use of XBRL
The most important advantages and disadvantages of the use of XBRL in the Netherlands will be
described in this subchapter. Information in this chapter is based on an earlier study [DGLS2009]. A
more detailed description of the (dis)advantages mentioned below can be found in that paper.
It has to be said that not all of the mentioned advantages and disadvantages could be assigned
directly to the XBRL technique. In some cases is XBRL a key enabler of the advantages or
disadvantages.
Digitalization
The use of XBRL stimulates digitalization of financial data exchange between company and
intermediary, and between sender (intermediary or company) and receiver (CBS, BD, Kvk and Banks).
Digitalization of data involves (or could involve in the future) for example ‘annual reports’, the
‘samenstelverklaring’ and return information like ‘delivery notifications’ or ‘final tax assessments’.
Information could also be of higher quality due to the combination of the taxonomy that supplies
definitions and due to horizontal supervision. As a result of digitalization and the establishment of
the Government Transaction Gateway, it is easier to spread information. Retyping errors will occur
less, because the retyping process is terminated. Also transport and delivery costs are reduced and
time is saved. Storage of information will become easier due to digitalization, because there are no
large physical libraries needed.
Disadvantages of digitalization (or the change to another digitalization standard) is that the need of
knowledge and skills in the organization changes at managing level as well in the supporting (IT
departments) and executing roles (users) in the organization. There could be also need for new
hardware, software or a new infrastructure. These mentioned disadvantages and costs are initial
costs, but can also cause returning costs at longer period (like energy consummation, backup, service
or licensing costs) and need to be taken into consideration and managed carefully.
Digital storage of data has also a disadvantage. The information is exposed to cyber crime and should
be protected. However, the need for physical protection is also still there.
Standardization
XBRL causes standardization, due to the use of the Dutch taxonomy. This result in easier exchange of
information via the OTP and result in a situation in which all parties know what is meant by the
datafields, because there is one standard definition. This could improve the information quality.
Due to standardization, it is also easier to integrate different systems with each other. Auditing will
become also easier, because it becomes possible to support the auditing process by computers.
Mapping costs for the receivers are terminated because all the data that they receive have the same
format.
However, a disadvantage is that in a situation where not all consecutive processes are fully XBRLenabled, the data has to be mapped before an XBRL instance can be created. This is a process that
has to be carried out only once (per data source), but has to be repeated when the taxonomy or the
data structure changes. This means much work in the current situation where the taxonomy is still in
development.
Leon Lekkerkerker
18
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Another disadvantage is that standardization makes organizations less flexible to choose their own
way of reporting.
Also are organizations faced with major changes in their (core) processes. It is questionable how
much organizations will decide to use XBRL and how they will maintain their execution of
professional duties on longer term, when they decide to use XBRL not. For organizations that decide
to use XBRL it is questionable if they succeed in changing their processes and in implementing XBRL.
A last point of criticism is about the technical part of the taxonomy. It is said that XBRL has weak
points, like the redundancy in linkbases and that fact the definition of semantics is not optimal.
[PIJLS07]
Safety
The Government Transaction Gateway is safer than earlier methods of digital communication with
the government, like the BAPI channel. It checks the authority and authentication of the users and
uses hashing and encryption methods for data that is being sent.
The drawback of these safety measures is the raise in costs and efforts it takes to implement and
maintain them.
Regulations
An advantage for XBRL is that the government has decided to support XBRL in its project to reduce
the administrative burdens. As a result to the new and changed regulations, costs will be reduced
and procedures will become easier. The senders, as well the receivers of XBRL information, are
expected to receive these benefits (over a longer period of time). Companies which has put financial
reporting out under contract to an intermediary, could also receive the benefits if XBRL. This is
happening when intermediaries recharge the lower costs into the bill for the companies. Companies
can also benefit from the shortened profit declarations, because they receive their final tax
assessment earlier.
The Dutch government however has chosen not to oblige XBRL.
2.2.6 Processes of accounting organizations and consequences of XBRL
As described earlier, accounting organizations (also referred to as intermediaries) are creators of
financial reports for companies. It is also possible that an organization produce their own financial
reports, but that situation is out of the scope of this subchapter.
Intermediaries receive more or less structured data from companies and process this data into useful
financial information that can be used for internal or external reporting purposes. Accounting
organizations also carry out assurance activities. This means that they audit the financial data that
companies provide and provide a certain level of assurance about the correctness of the data.
Both activities will be described in this subchapter.
Leon Lekkerkerker
19
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Composing activities
The activities that take place in a situation without XBRL can be divided into three main process
steps. It starts with the moment that a company its data enters the accounting organization until the
moment that financial reports left the intermediary.
1. Administration and bookkeeping. During this process, a trial balance (kolommenbalans) is
prepared. Different accounting software packages (like Accountview, Exact, Unit 4, etc) could
be used in this process.
2. Report generation. The financial reports are created in this step. Accounting organizations
use report generator software to support this process.
3. Fiscal preparation. The reports generated in step 2 could not be used for reporting to the Tax
Office without changes. The process of fiscal preparation is supported by fiscal software.
The figure below shows the parties and software types that are involved in the process of composing
financial reports in accounting organizations.
Figure 5: The process of composing financial reports. [DGLS2009]
As the earlier study ‘financial advantages and disadvantages of the use of XBRL’ [DGLS2009]
describes, XBRL could be used at different places in this process. The more and earlier the first stage
in which XBRL is used in the process, the higher are the benefits.
The following picture gives an overview of the earlier mentioned process with XBRL.
Leon Lekkerkerker
20
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Figure 6: The process of composing financial reports with the use of XBRL. [DGLS2009]
Instead of the situation where each receiving party has its own way of sending and receiving financial
reports, the XBRL situation shows the standardized way of spreading information via the
Government Transaction Gateway (OTP).
At this point in time it is most common that XBRL is generated at point three in the process that is
shown above. The fact is that the principle has changed from commercial and fiscal, to one (fiscal)
principle. As a result, the information of the report generator could also be used for fiscal
announcements. This will result in a situation where the fiscal software will become needless in the
future.
However, many companies are still interested in financial reports based on commercial principles, so
software must still be able to work with both principles. Therefore there will be fiscal software next
to the ‘classical’ report generators, until one type of software is able to handle all the needs for
different types of reports, and also the financial announcements. In such a situation is XBRL
generated at point 4 in the process, but that does not result in many advantages for accounting
organizations, because the other processes do not benefit from the use of XBRL.
It is also a possibility that organizations turn their financial data in, in XBRL format (point one). This is
however only possible in an organization that does his own digital bookkeeping in a software
package that is able to export XBRL. Also, to work with this XBRL file, the intermediaries must be able
to import this XBRL file into their own system.
Another possible point where XBRL files could be generated is point two (in the accounting software
of the intermediary). The XBRL file generated at this point could be used for communication, but if
the need for different type of reports still exists, then a report generator must be able to import the
XBRL file for further processing.
Based on interviews, it could be said that at this point in time, export functions for XBRL are
becoming more common, but import functions are rarely integrated in software packages. Therefore,
it is most common that XBRL is still generated in the end of the process activities of accounting
organizations.
Leon Lekkerkerker
21
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
As described earlier, the intermediary has to map the financial general ledger to the taxonomy,
before XBRL files could be generated. This process has to be carried out once per taxonomy, but has
to be repeated if there are changes in the taxonomy or the structure in which a company provides
this financial data.
Assurance activities
The assurance activities of accounting organizations are also undergoing a huge change with the use
of XBRL. The changes will be briefly described, but Bisschop described the changes in more detail in
his paper called ‘Invloed van XBRL op de accounting practice’ [BISS2009]. The paper is recommended
for anyone who wants to read more about the changes in the assurance activities, the threats and
opportunities to accounting organizations.
The first change in the assurance activities is the object of auditing. It changes from an annual
account on paper to an electronic XBRL instance, linked to a specific taxonomy. The audit and control
on segregation of duties is still necessary, but due to digitalization, systems are more and more
involved. Therefore it is also necessary to look at the segregation of duties within the IT organization.
These two changes result in changes in the type of knowledge and skills that auditors need to
possess to carry out their tasks.
There are also different kinds of risks of fraud or mistakes in reporting with XBRL. It is possible that
the wrong taxonomy can be used or that the data is not correctly mapped. The instance document
can also be changed before or even after the approval of the auditor.
However, due to the clear definitions in the taxonomy it becomes easier to detect fraud, because
there are no longer unclear, grey areas. More data also becomes available to base the approval on.
Both these advantages can lead to a higher level of assurance.
Threats to accounting organizations
The developments around XBRL result in some threats to accounting organizations. The first threat is
that it is possible that in a situation where XBRL is completely integrated in financial software,
companies itself will be able generate and send XBRL instances without the need of accounting
organizations. However, in such a situation an accounting organization can still fulfill a task in analysis
of financial data. They can also provide services for implementation and the maintenance of the
financial systems of the company.
Another threat is that banks are going to offer services that (partly) overlap with services that are
offered by accounting organizations. An example is the development of the electronic invoice (efactuur), which enables a bank to offer processing of the invoice in the bookkeeping of a company.
Opportunities for accounting organizations
Besides the threats that could lead to decrease of services and billable time, the implementation of
XBRL in the Netherlands also offers some opportunities to accounting organizations.
Due to the standardization it becomes easier to compare companies with each other. Accounting
organizations can offer benchmarks for companies. For example, a comparison of the financial
figures among companies in the same branch.
Leon Lekkerkerker
22
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Accounting organizations can also function as bank brokers. Because banks (are going to) accept
XBRL, it becomes easier to compare credit offers of different banks and advise companies.
Horizontal supervision can also lead to new opportunities and advantages. An accounting
organization often knows a company better than, for example, a bank. They know if the right
procedure is followed and they could advise banks with this information for credit ratings.
Accounting organizations can also help the tax office with supervision at the Tax Control Framework
(TCF). Companies could profit from such a situation because there will be less (unforeseen) tax
assessments afterwards.
With XBRL GL it is possible to offer real-time financial reports (for example on a company’s website).
However, to provide a certain level of assurance on this information, continuous assurance must be
integrated in the organization. Continuous assurance refers to the fact that monitoring and auditing
becomes integrated in the daily business processes of organizations. The amount and level of data of
XBRL FR is not enough for continuous auditing. XBRL GL is required, because it makes it possible to
zoom deeper in on the data.
2.3 The Dutch market of small and medium sized accounting organizations
In this subchapter the Dutch market of small and medium sized accounting organizations is
described. The definition of small and medium sized organizations will first be in focus. The second
segment aims to create a brief overview of branch organizations and professional associations in the
Dutch market of small and medium sized accounting organizations. Information and available
literature about the use of XBRL in small and medium sized accounting organizations in the
Netherlands will also be discussed.
2.3.1 Definition of small and medium sized organizations in the Netherlands
Small and medium sized organizations are knows in Dutch as ‘Middel- en Kleinbedrijf’ (MKB). MKB
organizations are limited in size, usually up to 250 employees. Around 4,2 million people are working
in the MKB in the Netherlands and 99% of all companies could be marked as being MKB companies
[MKBNED01].
Based on the information of the NIVRA (see next subchapter), there are approximately 3275
accounting organizations in the Netherlands.
In 2005 the MKB definition was redefined. Companies are split in micro (<10 employees), small (<50
employees) and medium sized (<250 employees). There are also limitations added on the yearly
turnover and balance sheet total.
The following table shows a summarization of these criteria.
Leon Lekkerkerker
23
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Figure 7: The definition of small and medium-sized organizations. [EC01]
Further in this report, organizations that have less than 250 employees will be reffered to as small
and medium sized organizations or the MKB. Middle sized, small and micro organizations are
included in the definition (and therefore in this study). For this study, the limitations on yearly
turnover and balance sheet total are not applied, because this keeps the definition easier to
understand and makes it easier to measure.
2.3.2 Branch organizations (professional associations) in the Dutch market of small and
medium sized accounting organizations
There are different branch organizations in the market of Dutch accounting organizations. A selected
group of them, which have supported the survey of this study will be described below.
NIVRA
The Royal NIVRA is the Dutch Institute for Chartered Accountants
(Nederlands Instituut van Registeraccountants). The NIVRA is
established by law and is the professional organization of more
than 14.000 chartered accountants. These accountants are not
only employed in the business world, but also by the government
or in different other functions.
The NIVRA is positive about XBRL and is actively involved in ‘XBRL
international’ and in international activities. The NIVRA pleaded
for the use of XBRL in the government’s project of reducing administrative burden and is also
involved in the development of XBRL by the NTP. The organization also organizes briefings and
meetings about XBRL for accountants and intermediaries. [NIVRA01]
Leon Lekkerkerker
24
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
CB
The CB (College Belastingadviseurs) is a branch organization with the aim to
protect the interests of tax consultants and to support consultants in the
execution of their profession. The CB exists since 1956 and currently has 4000
members. The CB holds discussions within governments and politics, and offers
support with the execution of the profession. [CB01]
FB
The FB (Nederlandse Federatie Belastingadviseurs) is also a
branch organization for accounting organizations. About 3000
organizations are members of the FB. The FB assists members
with education and support. Part of that is the information
provision about XBRL (developments). A goal of the organization is quality improvement. The
members of the FB could be recognized by the protected title FB behind their name. [FB01]
NOB
NOB (Nederlandse Orde van Belastingadviseurs) is a branch organization for
university trained tax consultants. NOB has 4500 members at this moment,
who are employed at 300 different organizations. The goal of the NOB is to
look after the interests of its members, to improve the practice of the tax
laws, and to improve qualitatively good execution of the professional duties.
[NOB01]
NOvAA
The NOvAA (Nederlandse Orde van AccountantsAdministratieconsulenten) is appointed by the Dutch
government to represent the general interests of AA
accountants. There are about 6500 AA-accountants in the
Netherlands, who are all registered at the NOvAA. The NOvAA
also executes statutory rules to guarantee the independence,
expertise and reliability of AA-accountants.
The NOvAA works together with the NIVRA on XBRL developments (for example, for the new style in
composing statement (‘(samenstel)verklaring nieuwe stijl’) and carries out the task of informing their
members about XBRL. [NOVAA01], [NIVRA01]
2.3.3 The use of XBRL in small and medium sized accounting organizations in the
Netherlands
Accounting organizations and their accountants show different kinds of thoughts towards the XBRL
developments. However, in general it can be said that XBRL is quite unknown to accountants. They
do not know what XBRL is or what the impact is on their profession. Some say that XBRL first has to
prove itself to show what advantages the use of it can offer. However, it must been said that
economies of scale apply to XBRL, so it is hard to already see all the advantages of XBRL at this point
in the development. [DGLS2009] [ACCNL01]
Leon Lekkerkerker
25
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Other organizations state that there is not enough software that supports XBRL at the moment. The
software is still in development, so not all packages support XBRL.
From another group of accountants it can be said that they are afraid of the changes that the XBRL
developments bring to their profession. They are afraid that there is not enough space for their own
share in the process of creating reports, and some are afraid that their profession will disappear.
However on the other hand, the development of XBRL also offers opportunities to offer new services
to advise, customized reports, horizontal supervision, etc. [BISS2009].
2.4 Acceptance versus adoption
The terms for adoption and acceptance are occasionally used in literature as synonyms, however
there is a major difference between those two terms. This difference was addressed by Kollman in
2006 [KOLLM06]. He states that adoption and acceptance are sequential phases in the acceptance
process. The following figure shows the three phases of the acceptance process.
Attitude
Adoption
Acceptance
Figure 8: Three main steps in the acceptance process, defined by Kollman.
The process starts with the ‘attitude’ phase. This phase covers the steps of awareness, interest and
assessment of the technology.
The second phase is the ‘adoption’ phase and it covers the trial, purchase and implementation of the
technology. As proved by Kollman in a segment of the literature, the adoption phase is concluded
with the decision to use the technology, or with the first usage of the technology. In another
literature segment is the decision to use (or the first use) seen as the first step in the acceptance
phase. In this study the first use of the technology is seen as the last step of the adoption phase.
The third phase, named the ‘acceptance’ phase, is seen as the phase where the technology is actually
being used on a continuous base, until the end of use. Part of this phase is the assessment of the use
and (wittingly or unwittingly) periodical decisions about the continuation of the use of the
technology.
As earlier mentioned, the goal of this study was to measure the adoption as well as the acceptance of
XBRL.
Leon Lekkerkerker
26
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
2.4.1 Adoption measurement
Because of the fact that adoption is a specific moment in time it could be easily measured via a
survey. Because the moment of the first use is included in the adoption phase, we could state that
organizations that use XBRL (after the implementation) have adopted XBRL.
The adoption curve, defined by Rogers in 1962 [ROGERS62], could be used to measure the progress
of adoption. The adoption curve describes the amount of adoptions over time. The following figure
shows the adoption curve.
Figure 9: The adoption curve defined by Rogers.
2.4.2 Acceptance measurement
There is no literature found that provides a definition about when a technology could be considered
as accepted, however in literature different models are found for measuring the acceptance. These
models consist of different factors that are of influence on the decisions concerning the continuation
of the use of a technology. The available acceptance models will be discussed in the next subchapter.
In various different sources of information the acceptance of XBRL is discussed, 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 measure
model is not known.
2.5 Acceptance measurement models
There are different acceptance measurement methods created over time. The most important
methods are summarized in this chapter. Which acceptance model is chosen for this study and why it
is chosen is also described.
2.5.1 Technology acceptance models
Over time, different models are developed to measure acceptance of technology. Each model
contains different factors that could influence the decision about whether to accept a technique or
not. The development of models is very briefly described in this subchapter, starting with the earliest
Leon Lekkerkerker
27
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
models. More information could be found in the referenced literature of the creators or in the paper
of Reumerman [REUMERM06], which provides a more detailed description of the models mentioned
below.
The first acceptance theories stated that system usage is a result of user satisfaction (the indicator of
technology acceptance). This is true, but given a situation where the users are not free to decide if
they want to use the technology, it is possible that the user satisfaction is low, while the system
usage is high. Based on these arguments, the theory is extended by Moore and Benbasat. They
defined eight innovation characteristics based on an earlier extension from Rogers who had defined
five characteristics.
One of the later, most widely known models is the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), was
developed by Fred Davis in 1989. It is an extension of the earlier models and explains computer
usage behavior. TAM includes the perceived usefulness (‘the degree to which a person believes that
using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance’) and the perceived ease of use
(‘the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort’) in the
model. The figure below shows the components of TAM and their relation to each other.
Figure 10: Components and relationships of TAM. [REUMERM06]
In 2000 an extension of TAM was made by Venkatesh and Davis. Their extension is called TAM2 and
included four cognitive factors (‘output quality’, ‘job relevance’, ‘result demonstrability’ and
‘perceived ease of use’) and three social influence factors (‘image’, ‘subjective norm’ and
‘voluntariness’). The picture below shows an overview of TAM 2.
Leon Lekkerkerker
28
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Figure 11: Components and relationships of TAM2. [REUMERM06]
2.5.2 Reumerman’s integrated model
In 2006, Reumerman [REUMERM06] concludes that “most of these models only implement a
‘personal view’ on acceptance system, rather than including an ‘organizational’ or ‘technical view’ ”.
Reumerman found proof for the expectation that organizational and technical factors influence the
acceptance, in comparing and integrating the De Lone & McLean model with the TAM2 model.
The following figure shows the two integrated models with the 7 user-concerned factors.
Figure 12: The integrated TAM2 and De Lone & McLean models by Reumerman. [REUMERM06]
Leon Lekkerkerker
29
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Based on the De Lone and McLean model, R. Hussein, M.H. Selamat, R.B. Anom, N.S.A. Karim and A.
Mamat [HSAKM03] conducted a survey, which lead to the identification of six organizational factors
and five technical factors that influenced information systems success. Based on the successful
integration of the De Lone & Mclean model and the TAM, Reumermans states that these factors also
influence the acceptance of a technology.
The six organizational factors of Selamat, Anom, Karim and Mamat are ‘top management support’,
‘management style’, ‘managerial IT knowledge’, ‘goal alignment’, ‘resources allocation’ and ‘decision
making structure’. The technical factors are ‘Information system (IS) structure’, ‘user support’, ‘IS
competency’, ‘IS facilities’ and ‘IS integration’.
As we saw, the seven user-concerned factors have not changed, but the integrated model proves the
relationship between the three perspectives (organizational, technical and user perspective).
The technical perspective is related through the system quality and the information quality factors
(left side in figure 13). In figure 13, it is also visible that the user-concerned factors influence the
organization (via ‘organizational impact’). The organization influences the user via, for example, the
“voluntariness” or the subjective norm. Hussein, Selamat, Anom, Karim and Mamat have proven the
relationship between the organizational and technical perspectives.
Eventually, the integration of the factors and perspectives led to the relationships presented in the
following figure.
Figure 13: Relationships of the three perspectives with their factors. [REUMERM06]
2.4.3 Usage of Reumerman’s integrated model
The integrated model of Reumerman is used for this study. Based on the case of acceptance of the
GeoVisia system by a province of Holland (Noord-Holland), Reumerman has already proven the
influence of the different factors (and perspectives) on the acceptance.
Leon Lekkerkerker
30
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
As we saw, the three perspectives have a total of 18 factors. However, Reumerman advises that for
each situation has to be reasoned with which factors are relevant for that situation.
The next chapter describes how the factors of the integrated model are translated to the situation of
XBRL acceptance by small and middle-sized accounting organizations in the Netherlands.
2.5 Chapter conclusions
Based on the literature study, we are now able to answer the first four sub-research questions.
Sub-research question
1. What is XBRL and what does it mean for accounting organizations?
XBRL is a method for digital exchange of financial information. There are two types of XBRL:
XBRL-FR and XBRL-GL. XBRL is based on XML and consist of instance documents and on ore more
taxonomies. The taxonomy contains information about the data in the instance file and is linked
from the instance file.
For the exchange of XBRL in the Netherlands the OTP is used. Involved parties in XBRL
developments are direct users such as accounting organizations, companies and receivers of
XBRL, but also other parties including the Dutch government. XBRL brings changes in the form of
digitalization, standardization and safety. Also the way organizations work will change. This
results in many challenges.
XBRL can be generated in different places in the accounting organization. The most advantages
will be achieved in a situation where all systems are integrated. Also assurance activities carried
out by accounting organizations will change due to the use of XBRL.
Sub-research question
2. How does the Dutch small- and medium-sized accounting organizations market look
like?
Dutch small- and medium sized organizations are organizations with a maximum of 250
employees and include the micro, small and medium sized companies (as defined by the
European Commission). In the Dutch market several branch organizations and professional
associations are active, including the NIVRA, NOvAA, CB, FB, NOB.
In general it can be said that based on the available literature, many small and medium-sized
accounting organizations do not actively intend to implement XBRL in their organization.
Sometimes they do not know what XBRL is or anticipate being scared of the changes that it
brings to their profession.
Sub-research question
3. Which models are available for adoption and acceptance measurement?
Leon Lekkerkerker
31
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
It is important to make a distinction between adoption and acceptance. The goal of this study
was to measure the adoption as well as the acceptance of XBRL.
Adoption and acceptance are sequential steps in the acceptance process. Adoption covers the
acquisition, implementation and the (first) use of the system. Acceptance is the continuous use
of the technology.
Because adoption is a specific moment in time it could be easily measured via a survey. We could
state that organizations that use XBRL in daily operations have adopted XBRL.
Acceptance is not a specific moment in time. There is no definition found in literature that
provides information about the moment that a technology could be considered as accepted.
However in literature different models are found that provide insight into the factors that
influence the acceptance. These factors influence the decision about the continuation of the use
of the information system.
In 2006 Reumerman [REUMERM06] developed an integrated acceptance model with an
organizational, a technical and a user-concerned perspective. This model contains a total of 18
factors, which will be the base for the measurement of XBRL acceptance.
This model is used in this study to measure the acceptance of XBRL.
The organizational perspective consists of six factors, which are: ‘top management support’,
‘management style’, ‘managerial IT knowledge’, ‘goal alignment’, ‘resources allocation’ and
‘decision making structure’. The technical perspective contains the following five factors:
‘Information system (IS) structure’, ‘user support’, ‘IS competency’, ‘IS facilities’ and ‘IS
integration’. The last perspective, the user perspective contains seven factors, namely: ‘output
quality’, ‘job relevance’, ‘result demonstrability’ and ‘perceived ease of use’, ‘image’, ‘subjective
norm’ and ‘voluntariness’
Sub-research question
4. How could the adoption and acceptance of XBRL be measured for small and mediumsized accounting organizations in the Netherlands?
In consultation with the NIVRA are some possibilities considered for how information about
adoption and acceptance could be gathered. Eventually a computer delivered survey is 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 about why a computer-delivered survey is chosen.
There are three types of ‘interviews’ according to the book ‘Business Research Methods’
[BLUM05]:
Leon Lekkerkerker
32
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]



March 3th 2011
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, because information
about the state of XBRL adoption, acceptance and implementation can be company
sensitive information because it could give the company a competitive advantage.
Based on these criteria, a self-administered survey was the best solution.
In the self-administered survey category three types of surveys are distinguished [BLUM05]:
 Mail surveys
 Computer-delivered surveys
 Intercept studies
Only the first two options were appropriate for this study. For matters of cost efficiency and easy
result processing, a computer delivered survey was in favor above a mail survey and is therefore
chosen as research method.
Leon Lekkerkerker
33
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
3. Operationalization of theoretical acceptance factors and
identification of responders
3.1 Chapter introduction
This chapter describes the operationalization of the selected acceptance measurement model in the
field of XBRL acceptance of small and medium sized accounting organizations in the Netherlands. The
theory of acceptance measurement is combined with information about XBRL that is presented in
chapter 2 (the literature study) and additional information was attained through interviews.
Details about the process of operationalization can be found in subchapter 3.2. The first step was an
investigation of the possibilities for the measurement of the acceptance. Information about the
survey design could be found in chapter 3.3. In chapter 3.4 the results are presented to the general
measurement questions, which provide general information about the organizations that have
replied to the survey.
In the subchapters that follow the operationalization of the specific acceptance factors of the model
of Reumerman is described. For each factor the considerations in the operationalization process are
described, along with the most important results of the interviews. Also the final measurement
questions are described.
With the measurement questions defined, the fifth sub-research question can be answered.
Sub-research question
4. 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?
In chapter 4 the survey results for the factor specific measurement questions are described and
analyzed. In chapter 5 and 6, we look further into what the results say about the adoption and the
acceptance of XBRL respectively.
3.2 The operationalization process
The available measurement methodologies were investigated in an early stage of this study, so that
the process could be defined and planned in advance. During the process it was monitored if the
chosen measurement method was still suitable to test the acceptance, based on the theory.
After the investigation of the possible measurement methods an internet survey was chosen for (as
described in chapter 1).
The questions in the survey are based on the three measurement areas and the 18 factors described
in the acceptance model of Reumerman [REUMERM06].
To formulate the measurement questions of the survey, the factors of the theoretical acceptance
model first had to be operationalized. This means we had to look at how these factors could be
applied in practice. This resulted in operationalized factors, which are formulated in such a way that
Leon Lekkerkerker
34
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
they have a positive influence on the acceptance of XBRL. Each operationalized factor is measured in
the survey by one or more measurement questions.
The following figure shows the difference between the theoretical factor, the operationalized factor
and the measurement question with an example.
Factor of the acceptance model
Goal alignment
Operationalized factor
Lower costs on longer term
Measurement question
We expect that the use of XBRL (over longer periods) will lead to more
efficiency and, as a result, lower costs.
Figure 14: Example of a factor of the acceptance model, an operationalized factor and a measurement question
The operationalization of the factors and the formulation of measurement questions (or in short: the
process of operationalization) are carried out in a number of phases. Each phase had a different type
of input.
The following figure shows the input (green) and output (red) of the phases in this process.
Literature study
Theoretical
operationalization
of factors and
formulation of
interview questions
Interviews with
XBRL professionals
Operationalization
of factors and
formulation of
proposed
measurement
questions
Reconciliation with
the NIVRA
Formulation of final
measurement
questions
Figure 15: The main phases in the process of operationalization of the acceptance model.
Phase 1: Theoretical operationalization of factors and formulation of interview questions
Leon Lekkerkerker
35
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
In the first phase after the literature study is analyzed, the aspects that are described in the literature
study could be linked to particular factors of the acceptance model. Such a link resulted in a
theoretical operationalization of the factor.
Example of this phase in the operationalization process:
The described need (the literature study) for software packages that support XBRL is linked to the ‘IS
facilities’ factor of the acceptance model. The factor ‘Comprehensive amount of available software
packages’ is the theoretical operationalization of the ‘IS facilities’ factor of the acceptance model,
because this operationalization is based on theory.
To find out if these theoretical operationalized factors apply in practice, a list of interview questions
was formulated. These interview questions are extended with questions that are used to measure
the estimated importance of the factors of the acceptance model. Also questions were formulated to
discover which operationalizations elsewhere could be made.
Phase 2: Operationalization of factors and formulation of proposed measurement questions
The interview questions are asked to a (small) number of XBRL professionals of larger accounting
organizations and a (XBRL) software developer in the Netherlands, during personal or e-mail
interviews.
When interviews are referred to in this thesis, it is important to keep in mind while reading, that the
outcome of these interviews represents only a small part of interested parties in the Netherlands.
The interview summaries are not distributed with this report, because of the confidential aspects of
these interviews.
In the next process phase, the outcome of the interviews was used for definition of new
operationalized factors and improvement of the already defined operationalized factors. This
resulted in a final list with a total of 23 operationalized factors. For factors of the model that are
marked as important by interviewees more operationalized factors are specified, based on the
interviews. As a result, these theoretical factors are also represented in a higher degree in the
calculation of the general level of acceptance.
With the factors operationalized, the next step was to create measurement questions that could be
used to measure the attitude of all Dutch SME accounting organizations towards the operationalized
acceptance factors. For this purpose a list of proposed measurement questions (and statements) was
created, also based on the interviews. This list is reconciled with the NIVRA, as we will see in the
description of the next phase.
Example of this phase in the operationalization process:
The operationalized factor ‘Comprehensive amount of available software packages’ is measured by
the statement ‘The amount of software packages in the market that support XBRL is still limited’.
Leon Lekkerkerker
36
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
As we see, the statement in this example is formulated in a negative way. The formulations of the
questions and statements in the survey vary, to avoid any influence on responders due to the way
that questions are formulated.
However, it makes it harder to interpret the results. How the results should be interpreted is
discussed below.
If the organization agrees with our sample statement we could say that the positive influence of
operationalized factor does not apply and that instead the factor has a negative influence on the
acceptance.
Mathematically reasoned: the positive factor influence formulation (1) * negative question
formulation (-1) * positive answer (1) = negative effect (-1).
The following table shows the final effects on the acceptance of all possible situations. This table
could help to interpret the results of the study later on. For each measurement question described in
this chapter, how it is formulated is mentioned. As mentioned earlier, the operationalized factors are
formulated in such way that the influence is always positive.
Influence of
operationalized factor
Measurement question
formulation
Answer
Final effect on acceptance
Positive (1)
*
Positive (1)
*
Agree/Yes (1)
=
Positive (1)
Positive (1)
*
Positive (1)
*
Neutral (0)
=
Neutral (0)
Positive (1)
*
Positive (1)
*
Disagree/No (-1)
=
Negative (-1)
Positive (1)
*
Negative (-1)
*
Agree/Yes (1)
=
Negative (-1)
Positive (1)
*
Negative (-1)
*
Neutral (0)
=
Neutral (0)
Positive (1)
*
Negative (-1)
*
Disagree/No (-1)
=
Positive (1)
Table 1: Calculation method for final effects on the acceptance.
Phase 3: Formulation of final measurement questions
The complete list of ‘proposed’ measurement questions for the survey that has been created in the
previous phase, contains the first version of the measurement questions that are asked in the survey.
Besides the measurement questions concerning the operationalized acceptance factors, the list of
proposed measurement questions also contained general measurement questions. The general
measurement questions are used to measure some general aspects of the organizations, like size or
the fields of activity.
The survey was conducted in cooperation with the Dutch accounting branch organizations NIVRA,
NOvAA, NOB, CB and NFB. The proposed measurement questions for this study were reconciled with
J. Pasmooij (RA RE RO) of the NIVRA. This process took several months to complete. During those
months the questions where improved, the other branch organizations were contacted and the
distribution was planned. In January 2010, the survey was sent to all 3275 accounting organizations
in the Netherlands. 708 organizations responded to the survey, resulting in a response rate of 21.6%.
Leon Lekkerkerker
37
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
3.3 The survey design
The final version of survey consisted of measurement questions for this study that measure the
operationalized factors, questions of special interest for the NIVRA and combined measurement
questions. To keep the survey short, the goal was to combine as many measurement questions as
possible. In some situations a compromise decision had to be made, which limited the number of
analyses that could be carried out for the purpose of this study in some situations. This limitation is
considered against the advantages like the reachable population and the support by the branch
organizations and is considered acceptable.
The survey consisted of several multiple-choice questions, statements and open questions. For the
measurement of the acceptance factors multiple choice questions and statements are used. Each
question could be answered with two possible answers (yes/no). Each statement could be answered
with three possible answers (Yes\No\Do not know or Agree\Disagree\Do not know).
The survey is divided into four major parts:
 General identification: This part contained general questions based, on which the responders
could be placed into categories.
 Interest and decisions: Contains questions concerning the resource allocation and questions
concerning the decision about the usage of XBRL.
 Opinion about XBRL: This section contains several questions and statements measuring the
attitude of the responders towards the different factors in the organizational, technical and
user perspective. The questions and statements in this section are only asked to the
organizations that decided to use XBRL. This was a requirement of the NIVRA which wanted
to keep the survey short for most organizations. Strictly seen, this corresponds with the
theory that states that acceptance comes after adoption (and that therefore organizations
which have not decided to adopt XBRL, will also not accept XBRL). However, the drawback of
this decision is that we are unable to compare the answers of these questions with the
organizations that have not decided yet, or the organizations that have decided not to use
XBRL. For this reason we are also unable make any statements about the most important
reasons for the decision to use XBRL.
 Information and knowledge: In the last part of the survey the knowledge about XBRL within
the organization is measured, and the responder is asked for his opinion about the tasks of
several parties in information provision and how well these parties perform these tasks.
The survey is formulated in Dutch. The complete list of questions and statements in the survey can
be found in appendix A. In this chapter for each question or statement the Dutch original is listed, as
well as the English translation.
3.4 General questions and identification of the responders
Although we have not described the operationalization of the factors, we will first look at the results
of the general measurement question, to get a general impression of the organizations that have
responded on the survey and their attitude towards XBRL.
Leon Lekkerkerker
38
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
The answers to the general measurement questions make it possible to roughly identify and classify
the responders of the survey. Based on these classifications we are able to compare the survey
answers and analyze the difference between these classified groups.
This comparison could help to explain results and give insight into the opinions of different groups.
Based on that insight it is possible for stakeholders of XBRL acceptance to adjust processes to specific
requirements and expectations of the classified groups.
In this subchapter the general measurement questions are described, along with the answers to
these questions.
Methods of correlation analyses
One of the main parts of the analysis was the test for correlations, that could explain differences in
opinions between responders.
Possible explanations are sought for the results based on differences in general characteristics and
based on difference in opinions concerning (other) acceptance factors.
It was decided to use correlation tests instead of regression tests, because the direction of the
influence is not known. For example: it could be possible that an organization has not yet made a
decision about XBRL because they do not spent much time at the developments (they do not know
what XBRL is). But it is also possible that they do not spent much time at the developments because
they have not made a decision yet and are not yet interested.
The following table shows the statistical methods used for the tests for correlations.
Variable (outcome) 1
Variable (outcome) 2
Method used
Nominal
Nominal
Cramer’s V
Nominal
Ordinal
Ranked Biserial
Ordinal
Ordinal
Spearmans Rho
Table 2: Statistical methods used for correlation calculations.
The outcome of the correlation tests is between -1 and 1, which indicate respectively a perfect
negative and perfect positive correlation. An outcome of 0 indicates a complete absence of
correlation. In this analysis outcomes between -0.25 and 0.25 are also considered as indication of the
absence of correlation.
For this study a minimum p-value of 0.05 is used. This means that the chance that correlation is
caused by extreme results is 5%. Correlations with a p-value higher than 0.05 are considered
unreliable and are therefore not mentioned in the description. However, appendix C contains a
complete list of all correlations calculated by SPSS.
3.4.1 Organization size
The first question in the survey was about the size of the organization. The size categories were
based on the classification used by the NIVRA and is extended to be able to filter out the
organizations that fall outside the small and medium sized organizations definition (see chapter
2.3.1). A total of 9 responses, out of the 708 responses, fell outside this definition, because these
Leon Lekkerkerker
39
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
organizations have more than 250 employees. The responses of these organizations are filtered out
for this study to maintain the scope. This resulted in 699 valid survey responses. The results
presented in this paper are without the responses of the organizations that fall outside the small and
medium sized organizations definition.
The number of responses from organizations outside the MKB definition was too small to make any
statements about the difference between those two groups.
With 33%, the organizations with only one labor unit is the largest group of responders in this survey,
followed by the organizations with 2 – 5 employees (29%) and 6 – 20 employees (26%). The other
organization sizes are less represented in this survey. Organizations with 21 - 51 employees
represent 7 % of the responders. 3% of the responders consist of 51 – 100 employees and only 2% of
the organizations consist of 101 – 250 employees. According to the NIVRA, the target population of
Dutch accounting organizations market is approximately in the same way divided as these numbers.
Number of employees of the organization
3%
N=699
2%
1
7%
33%
2-5
6-20
26%
21-50
51-100
29%
101-250
Figure 16: Number of employees of the organizations.
3.4.2 Fields of activity
The second categorization is the field of activity in which the organization is active. Based on
information from the NIVRA three fields of activity were defined: administrative services, composing
practice, fiscal (advice) practice.
The organizations that responded to the survey are less active in the field of composing practice
(70%), compared to the fields of administrative services (79%) and fiscal (advice) practice (82%).
Leon Lekkerkerker
40
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
N=699
Fields of activity
Yes
March 3th 2011
No
18%
21%
30%
79%
70%
Administrative services
Composing practice
82%
Fiscal (advice)practice
Figure 17: Fields of activity.
The number of fields of activities is derived from the questions that measure the fields of activity.
55% of all respondents are active in all three defined fields, 20% is active in two fields and 25% is
active in only one field.
Total fields of activity
N=699
25%
1
2
55%
20%
3
Figure 18: Total number of fields of activity.
As could be expected, the number of fields in which organizations are active correlates with the size
of an organization; larger organizations are active in significantly more fields than smaller
organizations. (rho = 0.363, df = 698, p < 0.001).
3.4.3 Memberships of branch organizations
Another general measurement question was about the branch organizations of which the employees
of an organization are members. The number of branch organizations, of which employees are
members, is derived from this question.
Leon Lekkerkerker
41
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Only 8% of all organizations that have responded have employees who are members of NOB,
followed by 22% of the responders that have members of the NIVRA in their organization, and 27%
of the FB. The NOvAA and the CB scored higher with 42% and 55% of organizations respectively, with
professionals that are associated with these branch organizations.
Memberships of branch organizations
Yes
N=699
No
45%
58%
73%
78%
92%
55%
42%
27%
22%
8%
NIVRA
NOvAA
NOB
CB
FB
Figure 19: Membership of branch organizations.
When we look at the number of memberships of different branch organizations, we see that the
employees of most organizations (66%) are members of only one branch of organizations. In only 2%
of the cases are all 5 branch organizations represented in the organization. The number of
memberships is averagely correlated with the size of the organization, meaning that larger
accounting organizations are members of more branch organizations than smaller organizations. (rho
= 0.567, df = 698, p < 0.001).
Total memberships of branch organizations
N=699
2%
7%
4%
1
2
21%
3
4
66%
5
Figure 20:Total number of memberships of branch organizations within an organization.
Leon Lekkerkerker
42
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
3.4.4 Decision about XBRL usage
To manage the flow of the survey optimally, the questions about the decision concerning XBRL usage
were divided over two questions. The first question measured if a decision was already made. The
second question measured the outcome of this decision.
For this study, the results of these two questions are combined, to create a picture of the current
state of the decision-making-process concerning XBRL usage at organizations. The state of decision
will be referred to this (combined) result.
From the organizations that responded, 85% had not decided yet about the usage of XBRL. Only 3%
of all responders said that they have decided not to use XBRL. The other 12% have decided to use
XBRL.
N=699
Decision about XBRL usage
3%
12%
Decided to use XBRL
Not decided yet
Decided to don't use XBRL
85%
Figure 21: State of XBRL usage.
During the interviews several interviewees indicated that they expect that larger organizations are
more likely to have already decided and decided to use XBRL, compared to smaller organizations.
However, the correlation between the state of decision and the size of the organization indicates
there are no significant differences in the state of decision between organizations of different sizes.
(rho = 0.157, df = 698, p < 0.001)
Outcome of the decision processes
When we look closer at the decisions that have been made, it turns out that 76% of the organizations
decided to use XBRL, over 24% that decided not to use XBRL.
Leon Lekkerkerker
43
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
Decision about XBRL usage
March 3th 2011
N=106
24%
Decided to use XBRL
Decided to don't use XBRL
76%
Figure 22: Decision about XBRL usage
As mentioned earlier, the factor specific questions and statements were only asked to the
organizations that decided to use XBRL. Nevertheless, there was the need to get some insight into
the reasons for the decisions made concerning XBRL usage or the reasons why there is no decision
made yet. Therefore, for each of the 3 possible states of decision some frequently appeared reasons
are offered, which could be checked as a reason for the current state of decision. The reasons are
brought forward by the NIVRA and based on earlier meetings with accounting organizations.
Although the reasons are not one on one comparable with each other or comparable with the factor
specific questions and statements, in some situations these reasons will be referred to.
While the link to these reasons will be argued, it is advisable to look at these links in a reserved
manner.
Organizations that have not made a decision yet
The absence of demand from customers for XBRL usage is in 64% of the cases mentioned as a reason
for the fact that there is no decision is made yet concerning XBRL. 57% of the responders mentioned
the lack of information as reason. Less that the half of the responders mentioned the uncertainness
of the success of XBRL (44%) or the fact that XBRL is not yet obligatory (43%) as a reason.
Leon Lekkerkerker
44
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
N=593
Reason for no decision
Yes
43%
36%
56%
57%
Not enough
information
No
64%
44%
Not clear if will be a
succes
No demand from
customers
57%
43%
Not yet obligatory
Figure 23: Reasons for no decision made yet.
The organizations that have not decided yet are also asked for the period in which they expect to
make the decision concerning XBRL usage. Most of the organizations (56%) expect to make this
decision after one year, 36% expect between 6 months and 1 year and 8% of expect within 6 months.
Expected moment of decision
N=593
8%
Within 6 months
56%
36%
Within 6 months to 1 year
Above 1 year
Figure 24: Expected moment of decision.
Earlier there was an absence of correlation between the organization size and the state of decision
found, were it was expected. However the analysis of the results shows a correlation between the
moment that an organization expects to decide about XBRL and the size that an organization has.
(rho = -0.320, df = 592, p < 0.001). This means that of organizations that have not decided yet, larger
organizations are significantly more likely to make decision sooner, as compared to smaller
organizations.
Leon Lekkerkerker
45
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Organizations that decided not to use XBRL
25 responders indicate that their organization has decided not to use XBRL. These responders are
asked for the reason for this decision. Although the group that answered this question is small, it
could give an indication of important reasons.
In 60% of the cases the fact is that the organization sees no added value of XBRL usage, a reason for
the decision not to use XBRL. The expenses for the implementation is in 36% marked as a reason. The
complexity of XBRL implementation, and the fact that it is not obligatory yet accounts for 32% of the
cases. 16% of the organizations are not convinced of the success of XBRL and 1 organization (4%)
mentioned the fact that the organization will be discontinued as a reason for the decision not to use
XBRL.
Reason for decision not to use
Yes
N=25
No
40%
96%
84%
68%
68%
64%
32%
36%
60%
16%
32%
4%
Organization will Not convinced of Not obligatory
be discontinued succes of XBRL
yet
See no added
value of XBRL
Implementation Implementation
is too complex
is too costly
Figure 25: Reasons for decision not to use XBRL.
Organizations that decided to use XBRL
As mentioned earlier, 12% of the responders have decided to use XBRL. These responders are asked
for the reasons for this decision. The expectation that is will become obligatory is for 70% a reason
for this decision. In 63% of the cases the (expected) increase in efficiency and cost reduction are the
reason. The demand from customers and the exception to gain strategic advantage is in 48% and
44% respectively mentioned as a reason. Only in 19% of the results is the expectation that the
competitors will use XBRL a reason for the decision to use XBRL.
Leon Lekkerkerker
46
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
N=81
Reason for decision to use
Yes
56%
37%
No
52%
30%
81%
44%
63%
48%
70%
19%
Strategic
advantage
Efficiency and
Customers
Expectation that Expectation that
cost reduction expect us to use it will become the competitors
obligatory
will use it
Figure 26: Reasons for decision to use XBRL.
The responders who state that their organization has decided to use XBRL are also asked for the
current status of the implementation. If strictly seen, the implementation phase starts after the
software is selected and bought. However for this question a broader definition is used. In this
question the implementation includes the whole process before XBRL is used in the daily processes.
11% of organizations that have decided to use XBRL state that their organization is already using
XBRL. This accounts for 1.3% of the total responses. From the organizations that decided to use it, 7%
has not started an investigation, 36 % has already started, and 26% is selecting software and
preparing for implementation. 14% is implementing XBRL and adjusting the processes and 6% of the
organizations are ready to use XBRL.
Stadium of implementation
N=81
No investigation started
11%
7%
Investigation started
6%
Selecting software and preperating
14%
36%
Implementing and adjusting processes
26%
Ready to use
Already using XBRL
Figure 27: Stadium of XBRL implementation.
Leon Lekkerkerker
47
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
In another question, the organizations that are not already using XBRL have been asked about the
expected moment that the implementation of XBRL will be completed. 34% of these organizations
expect to compete the implementation and to start using XBRL within 6 months. 51% expect that it
will take 6 months to 1 year, before they can start using XBRL and 15% expect that it will take more
than one year.
N=67
Expected moment of implementation
completion
15%
34%
Within 6 months
Within 6 months to 1 year
Above 1 year
51%
Figure 28: Expected moment that the implementation of XBRL will be completed.
As was expected, the results show a correlation between the moment an organization expects to
complete the implementation, and their stadium of implementation. (rho = -0.348, df = 66, p = 0.01).
This mean that organizations further in the implementation process, are more likely to complete the
implementation sooner compared to organizations early in the implementation process.
3.5 Operationalization of the factors of the organizational perspective
In this subchapter we will look at the operationalizations made from the factors of the acceptance
model of Reumerman and the factor specific measurement questions in which they result. The
results of these questions are described and analyzed in the following chapters.
The operationalizations are described per factor of the acceptance model. As described earlier,
acceptance model factors, which are indicated as important by the interviewees, are represented by
more than one operationalized factor and, as a result, more than one measurement question.
3.5.1 Factor: Decision-making structure
This factor represents ‘the type of control or delegation of decision-making authority throughout the
organization’. [REUMERM06]
One of the characteristics of the decision-making structure mentioned by R. Hussein, M.H. Selamat,
R.B. Anom, N.S.A. Karim and, A. Mamat is the centralization [HSAKM03]. Centralized decision-making
means that the decisions are made at one point in the organization. An example of decentralized
Leon Lekkerkerker
48
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
decision-making is a situation where each division of an organization is free to decide if they want to
use a certain technology. In the situation of XBRL usage in accounting organizations it is not likely
that decisions are made de-centrally, because XBRL has much impact on all divisions and is the core
business of accounting organizations. The interviews show that the most of the questioned
organizations estimate that 40-60% of the employees in the organization (from a broad range of
divisions) will have business with XBRL.
Because the decision about the use of XBRL has impact on more divisions and employees, it can be
expected that it will be made central in the organization. The interviewees also confirm that the
decision about XBRL usage in their organization was centralized.
Another mentioned characteristic of a decision-making structure is the size of the decision-making
authority. A large sized decision-making authority could slow down an implementation process. Due
to the amount of different opinions it could take longer to agree about certain issues than with a
smaller sized decision-making authority. However, too few people involved in the decision-making
authority could lead to problems in the acceptance phase. People could feel ignored and could
decide to resist the decisions of the decision-making authority. An optimal size could be different for
each organization.
In the interviews it is also asked if the organizations have chosen for a compact or a larger sized
decision-making authority. All the questioned organizations have chosen for a compact team of
professionals to investigate the possibilities and impact of the XBRL technology. The decisions
concerning the use of XBRL were made with most of the internal stakeholders involved (or
represented), based on the results of the investigation.
It is interesting to see what the size is of the decision-making authority in other accounting
organizations, as it could have an effect on the time it takes to make an decision as described.
Therefore, a question is added in the survey, which measures whether all the internal stakeholders
are involved in the decision process concerning XBRL usage or not.
This is the only operationalization from which we could not say if it has a positive or negative
influence on the acceptance, because the influence could be positive or negative as we saw earlier.
Question
Dutch
Zijn alle interne stakeholders betrokken bij de besluitvorming over het gebruik van XBRL?
English Are all internal stakeholders involved in the decision-making process concerning the usage of XBRL?
Measures the operationalized factor: Involvement of internal stakeholders in decision making
Possible answers: Yes, No
Question formulation: Positive or Negative
3.5.2 Factor: Top management support
Top management support can be seen as the degree of support of the (top) management for the
technique and activities concerning the technique. A high degree of support could be positive for the
acceptance of a technique (as described by V. Grover[GROVER03]).
However, the degree of support of the top management is hard to measure in a survey. It is possible
that the survey was completed by someone who is not a part of top management. It is likely that this
Leon Lekkerkerker
49
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
person is not informed about the support of the individual members of the management team,
because only the decision of the whole team is communicated to the rest of the organization.
Therefore, there was no question concerning the top management support asked in the survey.
3.5.3 Factor: Goal alignment
The factor ‘goal alignment’ can be seen as the degree to which the technology matches with the
goals of the organization. A technology that is more aligned with an organization’s goals is more
likely to be accepted than a technology that is less aligned. [HSAKM03]
During the interviews responders are asked to rate the importance of several goals and the
alignment of XBRL with these goals. The interviewees suggest that XBRL is suitable for digitalization
and standardization, but that those are not the most important goals of their organizations.
The opinions differ about the suitability of XBRL to keep offering current services and the suitability
to extend the quality of the current services at this moment. However the interviewees expect that
the suitability will grow in time, when new software becomes available and new parties will accept
XBRL.
The financial impact of XBRL usage was seen as an important goal. Every interviewed organization
expects that XBRL will help to cut cost in the long term. The opinions about short term cost cuttings
differ. Some organizations said that implementation of XBRL will lead to increases in the costs.
The professionals who are interviewed defined goal alignment as a major factor that influences a
decision about the use of XBRL.
Based on indication that goal alignment is an important factor, two operationalizations are made and
two questions were asked in the survey. The first measurement question is about costs in the short
term and the second about cost cuttings in the long term.
Statement
Dutch
Het invoeren van XBRL betekent op dit moment een verhoging van mijn kosten.
English Implementation of XBRL means an increase in my costs at this moment.
Measures the operationalized factor: Low costs at this moment
Possible answers: Yes (agree), Do not know (neutral), No (disagree)
Question formulation: Negative
Statement
Dutch
We verwachten dat het gebruik van XBRL (op termijn) zal leiden tot meer efficiëntie en daardoor
lagere kosten.
English We expect that the use of XBRL (over longer periods) will lead to more efficiency and because of
that, lower costs.
Measures the operationalized factor: Lower costs over longer periods
Possible answers: Yes (agree), Do not know (neutral), No (disagree)
Question formulation: Positive
Leon Lekkerkerker
50
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
3.5.4 Factor: Managerial IT knowledge
The managerial IT knowledge is the amount of IT knowledge that the management team of an
organization possesses. In a broader perspective, it can be said that it is also the amount of
knowledge about the technology of the management team. A sufficient base of knowledge can help
to understand dilemmas and could help to make better decisions. A high level of knowledge is not
always positive for a technique, because a weak technology will be earlier identified and rejected.
To make a decision about the use of XBRL, it is not required to have a total base of knowledge at
management level. In the interviews is asked if it the interviewees are of the opinion that is
important to have technical knowledge about the XBRL and the OTP to be able to make right
decisions. All the organizations believe that detailed technical knowledge about the technology is not
necessary for the management team. They are of the opinion that knowledge about the impact of
XBRL and the advantages and disadvantages could be enough for the management to make good
decisions.
Most of the interviewees expect that in larger organizations, an XBRL team will be founded, which
investigates the technique. After the investigation, the team will inform the management team, who
will then base their decision concerning XBRL usage on the information of the XBRL team. Smaller
organizations are less likely to have such a team.
Because the approach of each organization is different, it is hard to measure the knowledge of the
management team and draw conclusions from this measurement. A specific question about the
managerial IT knowledge was not present in the survey.
3.5.5 Factor: Management style
The factor ‘management style’ represents the style of management that is being used in the
organization. A certain style could influence the implementation process and the acceptance process
positive or negative.
Tannenbaum and Schmidt described different styles of management ranging from ‘boss-centered
leadership’ to ‘subordinate-centered leadership’ [TANSCH58]. In the interview phase it is asked which
management style the organization thinks is the best for implementing XBRL.
Most organizations do not prefer a specific style, but a flexible approach, because of the change that
has to be made.
The choice for flexibility can also be explained with Lewin’s Change Model. [LEVAS01]. Lewin defined
three steps in the change process, namely ‘unfreezing’, ‘change’, and ‘freezing’. To proceed through
the different steps, it is likely that several management approaches have to be used.
Besides the need for flexibility in management, the first two steps defined by Lewin also require
flexibility from the people who have to change. This flexibility is needed to adopt the changes. It
could be hard to achieve the degree of flexibility needed, as we could learn from (for example) the
process of change described by H. Andrew Connolly [CONNO79].
Leon Lekkerkerker
51
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
A statement about the flexibility that is required for implementation is added in the survey.
This statement covers the managerial flexibility and the flexibility from employees that is needed to
adopt the changes. Based on the fact that achievement of flexibility could be hard, it could be said
that it is positive for a technology if there is not a high degree of flexibility needed.
Statement
Dutch
Het invoeren van XBRL vereist op dit moment een hoge mate van flexibiliteit van onze organisatie.
English Implementation of XBRL requires a high degree of flexibility of our organization at this moment.
Measures the operationalized factor: No need for flexibility
Possible answers: Yes (agree), Do not know (neutral), No (disagree)
Question formulation: Negative
3.5.6 Factor: Resources allocation
This factor represents the amount of resources that are allocated to the technology.
Six major categories of resources have been suggested in literature: financial resources, physical
resources, human resources, technological resources, reputation, and organizational resources
[GRAND91]. The amount of resources that is assigned to the technology or a project related to the
technology could influence the speed of an implementation and can also influence the quality. Due
to a lack of resources, a project could make less progress or could not be finished at all. It can also
influence the quality of the project’s result.
One of the fundamental choices is the decision to pay attention to, and spend time with, the
developments concerning XBRL. When no attention is paid to XBRL developments, it is likely that
there are no (or little) resources allocated to any activity concerning XBRL technology.
A subsequent choice that could be made is to assign a priority to XBRL above other developments. As
a result, the assigned resources may grow and the process of implementation could be sped up or
the quality could be improved.
All the interviewed organizations spend time at XBRL developments and some organizations have
given XBRL a higher priority (compared to other technologies). Most interviewees expected that
resources allocation is an important factor that influences the process of implementation and
acceptance. Based on this suggested importance it is decided to ask two questions about the
resources allocation in the survey.
Question
Dutch
Besteedt uw organisatie aandacht aan de ontwikkelingen m.b.t. XBRL?
English Does your organization pay attention to the developments concerning XBRL?
Measures the operationalized factor: Time allocated time to developments
Possible answers: Yes, No
Question formulation: Positive
Leon Lekkerkerker
52
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Question
Dutch
Heeft XBRL prioriteit boven andere ontwikkelingen?
English Does XBRL have priority above other developments?
Measures the operationalized factor: High priority level
Possible answers: Yes, No
Question formulation: Positive
3.6 Operationalization of the factors of the technology perspective
3.6.1 Factor: Information system facilities
This factor refers to the availability of IT facilities at the moment of the technology implementation.
This could be facilities such as hardware, software or network facilities, and could be internal
facilities like the current network infrastructure of an organization, or external facilities like the
available software for a certain task.
The XBRL technology does not require any specific hardware or network facilities for usage in
accounting organization. Only processing capacity is needed. However, the requirements for
software facilities will change when an organization decides to start using XBRL. In such a scenario
software is required to support XBRL files.
During the literature study indications were found that a lot of organizations are of the opinion that
the amount of software packages that support XBRL are still limited.
Most of the interviewees are of the opinion that the availability of software that supports XBRL is of
strong influence on the use and acceptance. They expect that a lot of organizations postpone the
implementation of XBRL due to the amount of available software packages that support XBRL.
Based on the indications that the availability of software packages is of strong influence is decided to
add four statements about software and software suppliers in the survey.
Statement
Dutch
Het aantal softwarepakketten in de markt dat XBRL ondersteund is nog beperkt.
English The amount of software packages in the market that support XBRL is still limited.
Measures the operationalized factor: Comprehensive amount of available software packages
Possible answers: Yes (agree), Do not know (neutral), No (disagree)
Question formulation: Negative
Statement
Dutch
Mijn softwareleverancier is onvoldoende op de hoogte van de mogelijkheden van XBRL.
English My software supplier is not well enough informed about the possibilities of XBRL.
Measures the operationalized factor: Own software supplier is well informed
Possible answers: Yes (agree), Do not know (neutral), No (disagree)
Question formulation: Negative
Leon Lekkerkerker
53
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Statement
Dutch
Mijn softwareleverancier is nog niet klaar voor XBRL
English My software supplier is not ready for XBRL
Measures the operationalized factor: Own software supplier is ready for XBRL
Possible answers: Yes (agree), Do not know (neutral), No (disagree)
Question formulation: Negative
Statement
Dutch
Mijn softwareleverancier is niet in staat om het veranderingstempo van mijn kantoor te volgen en op
tijd de benodigde functionaliteit te leveren.
English My software supplier is not capable of following the tempo of changes of my organization and not
capable of delivering the needed functionality in time.
Measures the operationalized factor: Own software supplier is able to follow tempo of the organization
Possible answers: Yes (agree), Do not know (neutral), No (disagree)
Question formulation: Negative
3.6.2 Factor: Information system competency
The ‘information system competency’ factor represents the amount of technology knowledge of
project members and users. Knowledge of a technology is necessary for implementation and for the
usage of the technology. Activities like training and study can improve the level of knowledge, but
also acquiring new professionals is a possibility to improve the technology competency of an
organization.
In the interviews, responders are asked if there was need in the organization for people with XBRL
knowledge and if they are of the opinion that there are enough XBRL professionals in the
Netherlands. Every interviewee said that their organization still had need of people with XBRL
knowledge and most of them thought that there are not yet enough XBRL professionals in the
Netherlands.
In the survey the amount of knowledge that is present in the organization is investigated. To the
responders who rated the amount of knowledge as insufficient, a follow up question has been asked
about the way they plan to increase the knowledge within the organization.
Question
Dutch
Is op dit moment in uw organisatie voldoende kennis over XBRL in huis?
English At this moment is there sufficient knowledge about XBRL present in your organization?
Measures the operationalized factor: Knowledge level sufficient
Possible answers: Yes, Do not know (neutral), No
Question formulation: Positive
Leon Lekkerkerker
54
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
3.6.3 Factor: Information system integration
Information system integration is the degree with which the technology integrates with other
technologies and also the degree in which the technology integrates in the current processes.
Integration could have a positive influence on the implementation and the acceptance.
There is much literature about the about the advantages and disadvantages of integration (see for
example Themistocleous and Irani, 2001 or Benjamin and Scott Morton, 1988 [THEIRA01]
[BENMOR88]). From this literature, we learn that a higher degree of integration could lead to fewer
changes in existing processes, which makes implementation easier, or it could lead a higher degree of
automation.
As described in chapter 2.2.6 there are two common possibilities of integration for XBRL. These
possibilities are ‘integration of functions’ and ‘integration between applications’. In the first case, an
application integrates functions that are first carried out by a different type of application.
Integration between applications means that the link between the applications is standardized with,
in this case, the XBRL standard.
During the interviews the possibilities of integration of functions is asked. The responders are
positive about the possibilities of integration, but based on the responses it can be said that it is too
early to see the results of this type of integration at this moment.
The interviewees differ in opinion about the amount by which XBRL solutions integrate with other
systems and processes, but all the interviewees saw positive developments over the last year.
In the survey a statement is added about the integration of XBRL with other systems and with the
processes.
Statement
Dutch
XBRL oplossingen werken nog onvoldoende samen met onze huidige systemen en processen.
English XBRL solutions still collaborate insufficiently with our current systems and processes.
Measures the operationalized factor: Sufficient collaboration with systems and processes
Possible answers: Yes (agree), Don’t know (neutral), No (disagree)
Question formulation: Negative
3.6.4 Factor: User support
This factor represents the support of users in technical and functional aspects. The user may request
support, or it could be initiated by the support provider. The users who receive the support are for
example the end users of the technique or members of the management team. A support provider
can be part of the organization or could be part of other parties including the government, branch
organizations or the receivers of XBRL.
The support could be related to specific software or the technique in general.
In the case of XBRL the support concerning the technique is the most interesting to measure,
because that is earlier applicable than software support. Users and organizations need to know what
XBRL is, how it could be applied in their situation and what the impact of XBRL is. The need for
Leon Lekkerkerker
55
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
software support will appear later in the implementation process, when organizations are going to
use XBRL in daily operations.
User support is related to ‘information system competency’. An adequate level of user support could
help to increase competency and could have a positive influence on the acceptance.
During the interviews responders are asked which party has the task of informing and supporting
organizations and individual accountants concerning the XBRL technique. In the opinion of the
interviewees this is the task of the government, the receiving parties and especially the task of the
branch organizations. The interviewees were also of the opinion that informing and supporting
organizations is very important for the acceptance of XBRL.
To inform and support their employees, the interviewed organizations pay attention to XBRL in
communication with the employees via training, workshops, presentations and newsletters. Most of
the interviewed organizations are also of the opinion that the individual accountants should be
(more) proactive to gather information about XBRL.
In the interview three statements are present referring to the amount of information provided by
different (groups of) parties. For each group it was also asked if the responder is of the opinion that
the group has an important role in informing about XBRL.
Statement
Dutch
De overheid en uitvragende partijen (belastingdienst, CBS, KVK) verstrekken voldoende informatie
over (het gebruik van) XBRL.
English The government and receiving parties (BD, CBS, KVK) provide enough information about (the usage
of) XBRL.
Measures the operationalized factor: Sufficient information provision: Government and receivers
Possible answers: Yes (agree), Do not know (neutral), No (disagree)
Question formulation: Positive
Statement
Dutch
De banken verstrekken voldoende informatie over (het gebruik van) XBRL.
English The banks provide enough information about (the usage of) XBRL.
Measures the operationalized factor: Sufficient information provision: branch organizations
Possible answers: Yes (agree), Do not know (neutral), No (disagree)
Question formulation: Positive
Statement
Dutch
De beroepsorganisaties verstrekken voldoende informatie over (het gebruik van) XBRL.
English The branch organizations provide enough information about (the usage of) XBRL.
Measures the operationalized factor: Sufficient information provision: banks
Possible answers: Yes (agree), Do not know (neutral), No (disagree)
Question formulation: Positive
Leon Lekkerkerker
56
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
3.6.5 Factor: Information system structure
The information system structure factor includes the structure of the technology and the place of the
technology in the organization. If a technology has to be used organization wide, it also has to be
structured for organization wide use, instead of structured for use in one department. A smaller scale
of use would generally lead to fewer requirements. An organization is forced to make concessions to
adjust the organization to the technology if a technology does not fit the organization structure. It
can be said that the right structure is positive for the acceptance of a technology.
Some people say that the structure of XBRL is complex. Some of the interviewees also share that
opinion and said that XBRL could be implemented faster if the structure was less complex.
In the survey a question is added about the complexity of the technique.
Statement
Dutch
Invoeren van XBRL is moeilijk vanwege de complexiteit van de techniek.
English Implementation of XBRL is difficult because of the complexity of the technique.
Measures the operationalized factor: Low level of complexity of technique
Possible answers: Yes (agree), Do not know (neutral), No (disagree)
Question formulation: Negative.
3.7 Operationalization of the factors of the user perspective
3.7.1 Factor: Perceived ease of use
This factor represents the ease of use of the technology. The ease of use of a technology could be
influenced by the experience a user has with the software or the specific technology, because it
could be the most important experience with the technology. In that case the software becomes the
reference for image forming by a user concerning the technology. A positive ease of use experience
could influence the acceptance of the technology in a positive way.
Parts of the ease of use experience of the XBRL technology are for example the taxonomy files,
instance files, software to generate XBRL instances, tools to send XBRL (including the OTP), and tools
to read XBRL.
The interviews included questions about the ease of use of systems that support XBRL and the ease
of use of the OTP. The responders state that there still improvement possible concerning the ease of
use of these systems, but are in general positive.
Also a question about human readability of XBRL instances was included in the questions. As
described in the literature study, style sheets and XBRL viewers are available for this purpose.
However, most responders are still of the opinion that it is a ‘huge disadvantage’ that XBRL instances
are not ‘easy to read’ by humans.
A question about the human readability of XBRL instances is also present in the survey.
Leon Lekkerkerker
57
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Statement
Dutch
Het is nog niet eenvoudig genoeg om XBRL-berichten (instances) leesbaar te maken voor mensen.
English It is not yet easy enough to make XBRL-messages (instances) readable for humans.
Measures the operationalized factor: Easily to read by humans
Possible answers: Yes (agree), Do not know (neutral), No (disagree)
Question formulation: Negative.
3.7.2 Factor: Job relevance
The relevance of the technology for the specific party can be of influence at the acceptance of a
technology. A technology that is not relevant for an organization is less likely to be implemented and
accepted, especially when its implementation will result in a lot of changes or disadvantages. When
people do not see the relevance of the implementation they are likely to resist, because the
technology seems not to have enough advantages for them. An organization could also decide that
the technique is not interesting and, as a result, the organization will not spend any time on learning
or even using the technology. (Based on [PINAID02])
It is therefore important that usage of a technique will result in advantages for each involved party. If
people are forced to use a technique that offers only, or much more, advantages for other parties,
the users may believe that they are only using the technology for the advantage of someone else. If
the usage of the technology results in unwanted changes in the way that they used to carry out their
tasks, it is likely that they are going to resist. Such a situation is very likely to have a negative
influence on the acceptance.
The during the interviews, questioned accounting organizations see advantages for the other parties,
but see also many advantages for their own organization. They also state that the advantages of
XBRL for their own organization are the main reason why they decided to implement XBRL in their
organization.
Nevertheless, almost all of the organizations are of the opinion that the impact of XBRL for their
organization is still huge compared with the advantages that XBRL could offer.
A statement about the distribution of the advantages amongst parties in the business reporting chain
is added in the survey.
Statement
Dutch
De voordelen van XBRL zijn vooral voor de ontvangers (Belastingdienst, CBS, KvK) en slechts beperkt
voor mijn organisatie.
English The advantages of XBRL are mainly for the receivers (BD, CBS, KVK) and only limited for my
organization.
Measures the operationalized factor: Main placement of advantages at own organization
Possible answers: Yes (agree), Do not know (neutral), No (disagree)
Question formulation: Negative.
Leon Lekkerkerker
58
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
3.7.3 Factor: Result demonstrability
This factor represents the demonstrability of the results of the technology. Results are, for example,
the impact of the technology on the organization, the advantages or the disadvantages. A technology
with which the advantages are highly demonstrable is more likely to be accepted or could be
accepted earlier. On the other hand, if the results are demonstrable, but negative, it is likely that the
organization will not (yet) decide to use the technology.
However, it is good to split the measurement of actual results and the demonstrability of them. The
actual results are covered in the goal alignment factor, while the demonstrability is covered by this
factor. Demonstrability of results can be seen as positive, because it is less likely that an organization
decides to start using a technology of which the advantages and disadvantages are not clear.
According to the interviewees, the impact of XBRL on short term is quite demonstrable. However, the
advantages and disadvantages are less demonstrable. Some organizations state that these
advantages and disadvantages are mainly theoretical.
The survey contains a question about demonstrability of long term advantages and disadvantages of
XBRL usage.
Statement
Dutch
De voor- en nadelen van XBRL op lange termijn kunnen wij op dit moment al goed inschatten.
English At this moment, we are able to estimate the advantages and disadvantages of XBRL on longer term.
Measures the operationalized factor: Making estimations is possible
Possible answers: Yes (agree), Do not know (neutral), No (disagree)
Question formulation: Positive.
3.7.4 Factor: Output quality
The output quality is the quality with which a technology is able to perform his tasks. A sufficient
level of output quality could have a positive influence on the acceptance of the technology.
Based on the possible utilizations of XBRL mentioned literature study, some interview questions were
defined about the following tasks: Tax announcement, sending information to the CBS, sending
information to the KvK and receiving returned information. The interviewees rated the degree with
which XBRL is able to perform the tasks of sending information to the CBS and receiving retour
information lower than average. The other two tasks are rated average. However, the organizations
expect that the suitability of XBRL for these tasks will grow over time and will be better than the
current methods.
The interviewees differ in opinion about the possibilities of XBRL to produce customer (company)
specific reports and some doubt if only the fiscal principle of XBRL is sufficient to meet all the
reporting needs. The earlier methods for financial reporting do not have these obstacles. Therefore,
it could be relevant for the acceptance that XBRL is able to fulfill these reporting needs, because
XBRL will replace these methods. On the other hand, it is also possible that the perception of
Leon Lekkerkerker
59
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
financial reporting changes over time and that these two obstacles will be seen as less relevant for
the acceptance, compared to this moment.
The statement in the survey is based on the tasks of XBRL concerning reporting to the tax office, the
CBS and the KvK. Because these tasks are officially defined as applications of XBRL by the Dutch
government and the receivers, they can be marked as some of the most important applications of
the XBRL technology.
Statement
Dutch
De XBRL-technologie en de OTP (OverheidsTransactiePoort) zijn geschikt om snel en eenvoudig
belanstingaangifte te doen, informatie te versturen naar het CBS en financiële gegevens te
deponeren bij de KVK.
English The XBRL-Technology and the OTP (Government transaction gateway) are suitable to perform fast
and easy tax announcement reporting, sending information to the CBS and depositing information at
the KVK.
Measures the operationalized factor: Suitable for proposed tasks
Possible answers: Yes (agree), Do not know (neutral), No (disagree)
Question formulation: Positive.
3.7.5 Factor: Subjective norm
“The subjective norm represents the subject’s perception of how other people want the subject to
perform the behavior” [REUMERMAN]. The mentioned subject can be the whole organization, or the
individuals that are part of the organization. Important ‘others’ that could influence an accounting
organization are customers (companies), receivers of instances, other accounting organizations, the
employees of an organization, the Dutch government or branch organizations.
Most interviewees are of the opinion that when they support XBRL, it gives them a more positive
image compared to other accounting organizations. However, most accountant organizations are
careful to present their XBRL developments to their customers. Some say that it has to become more
distinct before it could be presented. The interviewed accounting organizations did not get any
questions about XBRL usage from their customers at that moment in time.
In the survey a statement is present that measures the request for XBRL by the customers of the
accounting organization.
Statement
Dutch
Onze klanten willen dat wij XBRL gebruiken.
English Our customers want us to use XBRL.
Measures the operationalized factor: Customers want organization to use XBRL
Possible answers: Yes (agree), Do not know (neutral), No (disagree)
Question formulation: Positive.
Leon Lekkerkerker
60
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
3.7.6 Factor: Image
This factor represents the image that an organization or an employee has concerning the technology.
It should not be confused with the image that others have of the specific accounting organization,
which is mentioned in the previous factor. A negative image could have a negative effect on the
acceptance.
Bisschop [BISS2009] is of the opinion that many organizations see XBRL as something that is going to
happen in a certain amount of years from now, but not very soon.
The interviewed organizations are also of the opinion that this is a common opinion amongst
accounting organizations. This opinion could be an explanation for the state of implementation of
the technology. It is likely that organizations which are of the opinion that XBRL is something that is
only relevant in a couple of years have not yet started with the implementation process or are going
through this process slower.
Statement
Dutch
Het zal nog een aantal jaar duren voor XBRL werkelijk iets kan betekenen voor onze organisatie.
English It will still take a number of years before XBRL could actually mean something for our organization.
Measures the operationalized factor: XBRL could mean something now
Possible answers: Yes (agree), Do not know (neutral), No (disagree)
Question formulation: Negative.
3.7.7 Factor: Voluntariness
The voluntariness is the degree by which the innovation is voluntary for the organization and the
individual users. It is not very common that employees of an organization are able to choose whether
to use the XBRL technology or not, so the in the case of XBRL the voluntariness at organizational level
is focused on.
Voluntariness could have an influence on the acceptance of XBRL, but it is not possible to rate
voluntariness itself as positive or negative. For example, when a technology is voluntary for an
organization, it allows an organization to be more critical about the technology before deciding about
the usage of the technology. When a technology is obligatory, it is possible that an organization has
adopted a technology but that the organization has not accepted the technology.
However, the wish for voluntariness could say something about the degree of acceptance. An
organization that has not accepted the technology (yet) is less likely to state that technology may be
obliged, because they may want to keep the possibilities open to stop the usage of the technology.
In the interviews organizations are asked if want to keep the XBRL voluntary for reporting to
receivers (the Tax office, CBS, KvK). Almost half of the organizations were of the opinion that XBRL
should stay voluntary.
In the survey the same statement was also presented.
Leon Lekkerkerker
61
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Statement
Dutch
Mijn organisatie vindt dat het mogelijk moet blijven om financiële gegevens in te dienen bij
ontvangers zonder gebruik te maken van XBRL.
English My organization is of the opinion that it has to remain possible to hand in financial information
without the usage of XBRL.
Measures the operationalized factor: No problem if obligatory
Possible answers: Yes (agree), Do not know (neutral), No (disagree)
Question formulation: Negative.
3.8 Recommendations for further acceptance and adoption surveys
In this subchapter are some directions for following acceptance and adoption survey described.
In this survey are some questions used to explain the adoption and some questions that focus on the
acceptance. Questions that help to explain the adoption could be less relevant in the longer term.
For example: an organization that has adopted and accepted XBRL for quite some time, is not very
likely to have assigned a high priority to the XBRL developments. However, the priority is an
interesting indicator in the early adoption phase, where many organizations have not yet adopted
XBRL. When a new survey will be drafted, it has to be decided for each question, if it is still relevant.
A point that could be considered is to extend the answer possibilities to a 5-point Likert scale, which
adds extra nuance and detail to the results.
Another point for consideration is the addition of questions to the survey about the progress and
developments in the organization about the previous period. Because of this addition, it would
become possible to measure the progress for individual organizations.
Furthermore it could be recommended to ask the adoption and acceptance questions to the
organizations that have not yet decided, or have decided not to use XBRL. Because of this, it becomes
possible to compare the results between these groups. This could give more insight intoto the
reasons and important factors that influenced the decision.
Finally, it could also be considered to add extra questions in the survey that measure the
‘importance’ of a certain subject or factor. This could be achieved in the same way as in the current
survey is done for the information provision question. For example, the question about the level of
information provision by the banks is accompanied with the following question: “The banks have an
important role in the provision of information about (the use of) XBRL”, with the answer possibilities
‘agree’, ’do not know’, ‘disagree’. With this information it will become possible to get insight intoto
the importance of the factors for the adoption and acceptance of XBRL. For this study, the factors
have been weighted based on the interviews.
Leon Lekkerkerker
62
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
3.9 Chapter conclusions
Sub-research question
4. 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?
In this chapter the operationalization of the acceptance model of Reumerman is described. For each
acceptance factor how they apply for XBRL is described and it is reasoned why certain questions are
asked in the survey. For factors of great importance more operationalizations are made. The
interviews with Dutch XBRL professionals were an important source of input for this process.
It would go beyond the purpose of this conclusion to go over each question again. In general, it
could be said that for almost each acceptance factor at least one operationalization is made and
therefore also one question in the survey.
Besides the factor specific questions general measurement questions were also present in the
survey. They are used to measure the size, fields of activity, memberships of branch organizations
and the decision about XBRL. The results of these questions are presented in this chapter.
Leon Lekkerkerker
63
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
4. Survey outcomes by operationalized factor
4.1 Chapter introduction
n this chapter the measurement results are presented from the questions that are used to measure
the operationalized acceptance factors. The results are grouped by acceptance perspective. In
chapter 6 these results are used to calculate and to explain the state of acceptance of XBRL by small
and medium sized accounting organizations in the Netherlands. An important difference between
these two chapters is that in this chapter the presented results are based on all responders that fell
in the MKB definition, while in chapter 6, the results are limited to the organizations that have
decided to use XBRL, because only these organizations have answered all questions concerning the
acceptance.
The results in this chapter are presented in an overview table. Charts of the results could be found in
appendix B. After each overview table details are provided about the outcomes. Also the discovered
relationships between operationalized factors are described and explained by reasoning. The
relationships are calculated with the correlation methods described in chapter 3.4.
It is possible that relationships are described with operationalized factors from which the outcomes
are not yet presented. However, for understanding the described relationships, it is not necessary to
know the exact outcomes of the other factor. Therefore, the relationships are described by the factor
where they are most apparently. Relations with a p-value of more than 0,05 are not mentioned
because these are considered unreliable.
Leon Lekkerkerker
64
Factor of the
model
Decision making
structure
Resources
allocation
Resources
allocation
Factor of the
model
Goal alignment
Goal alignment
Management style
Operationalized factor
Involvement of internal
stakeholders in decision
making
Time allocated to
developments
Leon Lekkerkerker
High priority level
Operationalized factor
Low costs at this moment
Lower costs over longer
period .
No need for flexibility
Implementation of XBRL requires a high degree of
flexibility of our organization at this moment.
We expect that the use of XBRL(over longer
periods) will lead to more efficiency and because
of that, lower costs.
Implementation of XBRL means an increase in my
costs at this moment.
Question
Does XBRL have priority above other
developments?
Does your organization pay attention to the
developments concerning XBRL?
Are all internal stakeholders involved in the
decision-making process concerning the usage of
XBRL?
Question
Negative
Positive
Negative
Question
formulation
Positive
Positive
Unknown
Question
formulation
81
81
81
N
699
699
699
N
39%
65%
65%
Agree
93%
46%
44%
Yes
9%
9%
5%
Neutral
-
-
-
Neutral
52%
26%
30%
Disagree
7%
54%
56%
No
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
4.2 Survey outcomes for the organizational perspective
4.2.1 Overview of the results by operationalized factor
Table 3: Overview of the results of the organizational perspective by operationalized factor.
65
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
4.2.2 Analysis of the results by operationalized factor
Involvement of internal stakeholders in decision-making
The involvement of all internal stakeholders is to a low degree correlated to whether an organization
has already made a decision concerning XBRL usage, or not. (Cramers V = 0.279, df = 698, p < 0.001).
This means that organizations, in which all internal stakeholders are involved, state more significantly
that they have already decided about XBRL usage, than organizations in which not all stakeholders
are involved.
The most obviously explanation for this correlation is that in the earlier phases of the decision
making process probably not all the internal stakeholders are involved, but that they will be involved
at the moment that the decision will be actually made. This corresponds with the method that the
interviewed organizations use.
No significant correlation is found that could imply that the involvement of all stakeholders is
correlated to the outcome of the decision.
Time allocated to developments and priority of XBRL developments
As the overview table shows, 54% of the responders state that their organizations do not spend time
on the developments concerning XBRL.
This is quite an interesting result, because 57% of the organizations that have not decided yet about
the usage of XBRL state that ‘not enough information’ is a reason for not making the decision yet.
However, there is no correlation found that could indicate that the organizations which do not have
enough information are paying significantly less attention to the developments compared to
organizations that have enough information. (Cramers V= -0.135, df = 592, p = 0.001).
Lower costs with XBRL at this moment and over longer period
The results show a contrast between the results of the operationalized factors concerning the costs
of XBRL usage.
The most responders (65%) are of the opinion that XBRL means an increase in costs at this moment,
but most responders are positive about the influence of XBRL on costs in the longer term. Also 65%
of responders is of the opinion that the use of XBRL in the longer term will lead to more efficiency
and, as a result, lower costs.
The statement about costs at this moment includes the costs of the implementation of XBRL and
could include also the costs of XBRL usage in the actual (early) stage of XBRL usage.
The results of the statement show that 65% of the responders are negative about costs at this
moment, but nevertheless these organizations are actually implementing XBRL. Further, as we saw in
chapter 3.4, the costs of the implementation (in the strict definition) were for 74% of the
organizations no reason for the decision not to use XBRL.
These two results suggest that the costs of the implementation and (temporarily) increase in costs
due to the implementation are not major obstacles for the decision to use XBRL.
Leon Lekkerkerker
66
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
No need for flexibility
Despite the fact that the group that agrees with the statement that implementation of XBRL requires
a high degree of flexibility is only 39%, it is still interesting to explore possible explanations for the
requirement of a high degree of flexibility. One explanation could be found in the survey results. The
results of this statement about needed flexibility correlate with the statement concerning the
collaboration of XBRL with current systems and processes. (Rho = 0.332, df = 81, p = 0.01).
This means that responders who are of the opinion that XBRL requires a high degree of flexibility are
more likely to be also of the opinion that XBRL collaborates insufficiently with current systems and
processes. This suggests that a high degree of flexibility is required for the change of systems and
processes that have to be made to be able to use XBRL.
Leon Lekkerkerker
67
Table 4: Overview of the results of the information technology perspective by operationalized factor.
Leon Lekkerkerker
68
IS facilities
IS facilities
IS facilities
IS integration
User support
User support
User support
Own software supplier is
well informed
Own software supplier is
ready for XBRL
Own software supplier is
able to follow tempo of the
organization
Sufficient collaboration with
systems and processes
Sufficient information
provision: Government and
receivers
Sufficient information
provision: branch
organizations
Sufficient information
provision: banks
IS structure
The branch organizations provide enough
information about (the usage of) XBRL.
IS facilities
Comprehensive amount of
available software packages
Low level of complexity of
technique
The banks provide enough information about (the
usage of) XBRL.
Factor of the
model
Operationalized factor
Implementation of XBRL is difficult because of the
complexity of the technique.
The government and receiving parties (BD, CBS,
KVK)provide enough information about (the usage
of) XBRL.
XBRL solutions still collaborate insufficiently with
our current systems and processes.
My software supplier is not capable of following
the tempo of changes of my organization and not
capable of delivering the needed functionality in
time.
My software supplier is not ready for XBRL
My software supplier is not well enough informed
about the possibilities of XBRL.
The amount of software packages in the market
that support XBRL is still limited.
Question
At this moment is there sufficient knowledge
about XBRL present in your organization?
IS competency
Knowledge level sufficient
Question
Factor of the
model
Operationalized factor
Negative
Positive
Positive
Positive
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Negative
Question
formulation
Positive
Question
formulation
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
N
674
N
25%
32%
6%
30%
45%
10%
35%
13%
75%
Agree
20%
Yes
21%
9%
10%
6%
22%
15%
6%
12%
10%
Neutral
-
Neutral
54%
59%
84%
64%
33%
75%
59%
75%
15%
Disagree
80%
No
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
4.3 Survey outcomes for the information technology perspective
4.3.1 Overview of the results by operationalized factor
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
4.3.2 Analysis of the results by operationalized factor
Knowledge level of the organizations
The results of the survey show a correlation between the fact if an organization has decided yet and
the question about the knowledge present in the organization. (Cramers V = 0.374, df = 673, p <
0.001). Organizations that have not decided about XBRL usage state significantly more (than
organizations which have decided to use XBRL) that the knowledge about XBRL is insufficient.
As turned out earlier, for 57% of the organizations is ‘not enough information’ a reason that they
made not a decision yet.
To the 539 organizations that indicate that their knowledge is insufficient, a follow up question is
asked about the way that the organization is planning to increase their knowledge about XBRL. This
information could help information providers to focus on specific information channels or to extend
certain channels.
As the following chart shows, 62% of the organizations are planning to extend their knowledge by
perusing websites, 55% by following courses and 21% plans to hire XBRL specialists.
Way of increasing knowledge
Yes
N=539
No
38%
45%
79%
62%
55%
21%
Follow courses
From websites
Hire specialists
Figure 29: Ways of increasing knowledge.
Information system facilities and software suppliers
The survey results show that 75% of all responders are negative about the amount of available
software packages in the market, but (in contrast) most organizations are positive towards the three
operationalized factors concerning their own software supplier.
Analysis shows that the answers to the question about the readiness of the software supplier of the
organization correlates with the organization’s phase of implementation (rho = 0.372, df = 80, p =
0.001), and also correlates with the expected implementation completion time (rho = -0.442, df = 80,
p < 0.001).
We can state that organizations that are further in the implementation process state significantly
more that their software supplier is ready for XBRL. This can also be said about the implementation
Leon Lekkerkerker
69
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
completion time. Organizations that state that their software supplier is ready for XBRL expect to
complete the implementation process significantly earlier than organizations that state that their
software supplier is not ready.
However, it is hard to draw conclusions from this information, because it is not clear what the cause
is and what the effect is. It could be that the software supplier is not ready because the organization
has not yet asked for XBRL because, for example, they are early in the implementation process.
However, it is also possible that the organization could not proceed in the implementation process
because the software is not ready. This same argument could be applied to the implementation
completion time.
However, the fourth measurement question provides evidence against the last possibility. The fourth
statement measured the capability of the software suppliers to follow the tempo of changes of the
organization. Only 10% of the responders state that their software supplier is not capable of
following the tempo changes of the organization.
Collaboration of XBRL with systems and processes
An interesting correlation is found between the question about the collaboration of XBRL with
current systems and processes, and the statement that XBRL is not easily readable enough for
humans (Rho = 0.468, df = 80, p < 0.001). This means that responders who rate the collaboration as
insufficient are also significantly more likely to state that XBRL is not easily readable for humans. It is
likely that the opinion that it is not easy enough to make XBRL readable for humans is one of the
reasons to state that XBRL solutions collaborate insufficiently with the processes.
Information provision concerning XBRL
The statements concerning user support were presented to the organizations that have decided to
use XBRL. Before each statement about the information provision of a particular party, the
organization is asked if they are of the opinion that that party has an important role in providing
information about XBRL.
The opinions concerning the roles of each party were quite uniform, as we can see in the following
chart.
Leon Lekkerkerker
70
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
Parties that have an important role in
informing about XBRL
Agree
Neutral / Do not know
March 3th 2011
N=81
Disagree
2%
98%
Government and receiving
parties
15%
10%
6%
85%
84%
Branch organizations
Banks
Figure 30: Parties that have an important role in informing accounting organizations about XBRL.
The results to the questions concerning the level of information provision could be found in the
overview table. The rating of the branch organizations is interesting, because the branch
organizations were rated in general by the organizations that have decided to use XBRL, but were
also rated per branch organization by their members.
The result to the general statement shows that 59% of the responders is of the opinion that branch
organizations do not provide enough information about XBRL. 9% is neutral and 32% is of the opinion
that the branch organization provides enough information.
The statements for the individual ratings were formulated in the same way as the general statement
and are asked to the responders who indicated that employees in their organization are members of
the particular branch organization.
As the following chart shows the NIVRA and NOvAA rated most positive, while the NOB is rated quite
negative.
Branche organization provide enough
information about XBRL
Yes
Neutral / Do not know
No
N=144
N=289
N=51
N=370
N=182
42%
43%
41%
36%
43%
20%
26%
47%
43%
6%
17%
14%
NOB
CB
FB
53%
38%
NIVRA
Leon Lekkerkerker
31%
NOvAA
71
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Figure 31: Degree in which branch organizations provide enough information about XBRL.
When these individual results are compared with the general rating of the branch organizations, we
see that the branch organizations were rated more neutral on individual basis than they were in
general.
There are different possible explanations for this appearance.
The first explanation is that other employees, other than the actual responders, are members of the
particular branch organization. It is therefore possible that the actual responder has no insight into
the information provision by a party, in which case the actual responder is likely to respond with ‘do
not know’.
Another explanation is the difference in responders to whom the statement is presented. The
general statements were presented to the organizations that decided to use XBRL, while the
individual statements were presented to all organizations that have an employee who is a member of
that particular branch organization. The only exception is that organizations that have chosen not to
use XBRL are not confronted with this statement, because information providing is not relevant for
them anymore. This leaves the organizations that have not decided yet and the organizations that
have decided to use XBRL. It is likely that the first group has other, more general, information needs,
compared with the second group. Therefore, the difference in audience (and information needs)
could be another explanation for the difference between the general and individual ratings.
Level of complexity of the technique
25% of the organizations that have decided to use XBRL state that it is difficult to implement XBRL
because of the complexity of the technique. 21% is neutral and 54% disagrees with the statement.
As we saw earlier, of the organizations that decided not to use XBRL 32%mentioned the complexity
of XBRL as a reason for that decision when they were asked for an explanation. This number is quite
close to the 25% that agrees with this statement. Nevertheless, the organizations to which this
statement is presented have decided to use XBRL. The explanation for this occurrence could be the
weight that is attached to this drawback, or could be the weight attached to other pros and cons.
Leon Lekkerkerker
72
Factor of the
model
Perceived ease of
use
Job relevance
Result
demonstrability
Output quality
Subjective norm
Image
Voluntariness
Operationalized factor
Easily to read by humans
Main placement of
advantages at own
organization
Leon Lekkerkerker
Making estimations is
possible
Suitable for proposed tasks
Customers want
organization to use XBRL
XBRL could mean
something now
No problem if obligatory
My organization is of the opinion that it has to
remain possible to hand in financial information
without the usage of XBRL.
It will still take a number of years before XBRL
could actually mean something for our
organization.
The XBRL-Technology and the OTP
(OverheidsTransactiePoort) are suitable to
perform fast and easy tax announcement
reporting, sending information to the CBS and
Our
customers
want us at
to the
useKVK.
XBRL.
depositing
information
At this moment, we are able to estimate the
advantages and disadvantages of XBRL on longer
term.
The advantages of XBRL are mainly for the
receivers (BD, CBS, KVK) and only limited for my
organization.
It is not yet easy enough to make XBRL-messages
(instances) readable for humans.
Question
Negative
Negative
Positive
Positive
Positive
Negative
Negative
Question
formulation
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
N
73%
31%
31%
62%
23%
78%
42%
Agree
6%
16%
28%
22%
10%
2%
39%
Neutral
21%
53%
41%
16%
67%
20%
19%
Disagree
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
4.4 Survey outcomes for the user perspective
4.4.1 Overview of the results by operationalized factor
Table 5: Overview of the results of the user concerned perspective by operationalized factor.
73
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
4.4.2 Analysis of the results by operationalized factor
Readability by humans
The survey results show that 42% is of the opinion that it is not easy enough to make XBRL instances
readable for humans. 39% is neutral and 19% disagrees with that opinion.
An explanation for this result could be the complexity of the technique. As described in the literature
study, XBRL consists of different layers and link bases, which makes it harder to read and to interpret
for humans. A software tool could help to make instances human-readable, but could result in extra
costs. This could be cost for making changes in processes or for a software tool that is capable of
reading XBRL. Creating workarounds to avoid having humans read an instance could also lead to an
increase in costs, for example costs to change processes or costs that are bigger due to human
errors.
The analysis shows that the answers to the statement concerning the human readability correlate to
the answers to the statement ‘implementation of XBRL means an increase in my costs at this
moment’ (Rho = 0.334, df = 80, p = 0.01). This correlation means that organizations that are of the
opinion that it is not easy enough to make XBRL messages human-readable are significantly more of
the opinion that XBRL implementations mean an increase in the costs of the organization. Therefore,
it can be said that this correlation supports the argumentation.
Customers that want the organization to use XBRL
Only 31% of the organizations that have decided to use XBRL receive signals that their customers
want them to use XBRL, while 28% do not know and 41% disagree.
The demand from the customer was also one of the reasons that could be chosen as response to the
question why an organization has not made a decision yet concerning the use of XBRL. For 64% of the
organizations, the absence of demand from customers is a reason for not making a decision yet.
A weakness is that these two statements are not fully exchangeable. The question to the
organizations that have not yet decided measures only if the absence of demand is a reason for not
making a decision, but it is also possible that there are organizations that also receive no demand
yet, but that for these organizations it is a reason for not making a decision yet.
Because of this weakness, we are not able to find proof for the statement that organizations with
customers who want them to use XBRL are more likely to decide to use XBRL, than organizations that
have not such customers.
Image
The opinion of Bisschop and the interviewed organizations that the image that ‘XBRL could only
mean something for the organization over a couple of years’ is supported by only 31% of the
organizations that have decided to use XBRL. It is possible that this image is supported in a higher
degree by organizations that have not decided yet, however this is not measured. For this reason we
are also not able to measure the influence of this image on the decision.
Leon Lekkerkerker
74
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Voluntariness
73% of the organizations that have decided to use XBRL are of the opinion that it has to remain
possible to hand in financial information without making use of XBRL. 6% is neutral and 21%
disagrees.
During the analysis a low degree of correlation is found between this statement and the statement ‘It
will still take a number of years before XBRL could actually mean something for our organization’.
(rho = 0,278, df = 80, p = 0,05). Organizations that are of the opinion that it will still take a number of
years are significantly more of the opinion that it has to remain possible to hand in information
without making use of XBRL.
One possible explanation for this correlation is that the organizations that think that it has to remain
possible, are not ready yet or do not prefer XBRL yet in certain situations.
However, next to this group, a lot of other organizations (which are of the opinion that XBRL could
actual mean something for their organization on short term) also believe that it has to remain
possible to hand in financial information without making use of XBRL.
Other operationalized factors.
The relationships found for the operationalized factors ‘Main placement of at own organization’,
‘Making estimations is possible’ and ‘Suitable of proposed tasks’ are already described by other
operationalized factors. The individual results to these factors can be found in the table above.
4.5 Chapter conclusions
In this chapter the measurement results are presented to the questions that are used to measure the
operationalized acceptance factors. The results are based on all responses of organizations that fell in
the MKB definition. The results could be read from the overview tables in this chapter. It would go
beyond the purpose of this conclusion to describe the outcomes again. The outcomes are used to
calculate and explain the acceptance of XBRL in chapter 6.
The analysis of the results provided some interesting (but mostly weak) correlations between the
operationalized acceptance factors. In this conclusion we mention the most important correlations:



There is an absence of correlation found that could indicate that the organizations which do
not have enough information are not paying significantly less attention to the developments
compared to organizations that have enough information. (Cramers V= -0.135, df = 592, p =
0.001).
The results suggest that the costs of the implementation and a (temporary) boost in costs
due to the implementation are not major obstacles for the decision to use XBRL. We saw that
65% of the organizations that are actually implementing are negative about the cost of XBRL
at this moment, however these costs seem not to be a major obstacle to implement XBRL. As
we saw earlier, for 74% of the organizations that have decided not to use XBRL the costs did
not factor in this decision.
Organizations that have not decided about XBRL usage state significantly more (than
organizations which have decided to use XBRL) that their knowledge about XBRL is
Leon Lekkerkerker
75
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]

March 3th 2011
insufficient (Cramers V = 0,374, df = 673, p < 0,001). It is possible that organizations acquire
more information when they have decided to use XBRL, but as seen earlier, for 57% of the
organizations ‘not enough information’ is a reason why they have not made a decision yet.
Therefore, we could state that information is important for an organization to make a
decision.
Analysis shows that the readiness of the software supplier of the organization correlates with
the phase of the implementation of the organization (rho = 0.372, df = 80, p = 0.001) and also
correlates with the expected implementation completion time (rho = -0.442, df = 80, p <
0.001). This could suggest that the organizations have to wait for their software supplier to
be able to implement XBRL. However further analysis shows that only 10% of the
organizations that are implementing XBRL expect that their software supplier could not keep
up with the tempo changes and could not provide them with the right software on time.
In chapter 3 we found also the following correlations:


During the interviews, several interviewees indicated that they expect that larger
organizations are more likely to have already decided to use XBRL, compared to smaller
organizations. However an absence correlation was found between the state of decision and
the size of the organization (rho = 0.157, df = 698, p < 0.001). This indicates that there are no
significant differences in the state of decision between organizations of different sizes.
Further analysis of the results showed a correlation between the moment that an
organization expects to decide about XBRL and the size of an organization. (rho = -0.320, df =
592, p < 0.001). This means that larger organizations are planning to make this decision
significantly sooner, compared to smaller organizations.
Leon Lekkerkerker
76
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
5. Adoption of XBRL
5.1 Chapter introduction
In this chapter the rate of adoption of XBRL by small and medium sized accounting organizations is
discussed. As discussed earlier, for this study adoption is defined as the first usage of the technology
for operational purposes (testing purposes are excluded).
The adoption of XBRL is measured in the survey by the question about the stadium of
implementation. The groups that reply to this question that they are already using XBRL are the
organizations that have adopted XBRL.
In this chapter we will discuss the adoption of XBRL in three different time frames. The methods with
which the adoption has been calculated differ for each time frame. It could be said that the
calculations for the longer time frames contain more assumptions and are therefore less accurate.
The following three time frames are discussed:



Current adoption. Adoption at the moment of the survey.
Expected adoption. Adoption from the moment of the survey till 12+ months. Calculations
are based on the question that measured the expected moment of implementation
completion.
Predicted adoption. Adoption from the moment of the survey to 24+ months. In this
calculation the organizations are also represented that have not yet made a decision
concerning XBRL usage.
The adoption is calculated over the survey responses. The results could differ for the organizations
that have not replied to the survey, but because the classification of the organizations that have
responded are considered representative for the total market of accounting organizations, the
calculated adoption is expected to represent all Dutch accounting organizations.
5.2 Current adoption
The current adoption of XBRL by small and medium sized accounting organizations is measured in the
survey by the question that measures the state of implementation of the organization. The results
show that 11.6% of the organizations that have decided to use XBRL, is already using XBRL. These are
the organizations that have already adopted XBRL. The other 88.4% of the organizations that have
decided to use XBRL are working towards adoption of XBRL.
When placing these numbers in the context of all 699 responses, the percentage that has adopted
XBRL at this moment is 1.3%. The percentage that is working towards adoption is 10.3%. 3.6% has
decided not to adopt XBRL yet and the other 84.8% has not made a decision yet about XBRL
adoption.
The following tree gives an overview of these numbers. In the blocks the state of the responders is
mentioned. The percentage in each block represents the number responders relative to all 699
responders. At each line below the blocks the percentage of responders is mentioned relative to all
Leon Lekkerkerker
77
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
responders in the block above. The green block represents the group that has adopted XBRL at this
moment.
All responses
100%
84,8%
15,2%
Not decided
Decided
84,8%
15,2%
23,6%
76,4%
Decided not to use
Decided to use
3,6%
11,6
88,4%
11,6%
Not using yet
10,3%
Already using
1,3%
Figure 32: Calculation of the current adoption
5.3 Expected adoption
The answers to the question about the moment in which the organization expects that the
implementation is completed, provide some insight into the adoptions that could be expected in the
upcoming period of time.
The question is not posed to the organizations that stated that they are ready to use XBRL. For this
group it is assumed that they will adopt in 0 – 6 months.
The following graph and table show the XBRL adoptions that could be expected based on the survey
results.
Leon Lekkerkerker
78
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
N=699
14%
12%
Adoption rate
10%
8%
New Adoptions
Total number of adoptions
6%
4%
2%
0%
At this moment
0 - 6 months
6 - 12 months
12+ months
Figure 33: Expected number of adoptions over time
At this moment
New adoptions
Total number of
adoptions
1.29%
0-6 months
6-12 months
12+ months
4.01%
4.86%
1.43%
5.30%
10.16%
11.59%
Table 6: Expected number of adoptions over time
As we see, in the first 6 months 4.01% of all responders (28 organizations) expect to adopt XBRL. This
number is added to 1.29% of organizations that are already adopting XBRL. This results in an
expected total of 5.30% XBRL adoptions at the end of the 6 months. 10.16% of organizations expect
to adopt XBRL in 12 months. Only a small quantity of 1.43% expects to adopt XBRL in over 12
months. However, it is possible that this decreasing number of adoptions will be compensated by
organizations that have not yet decided about XBRL usage, but that will decide to adopt XBRL.
5.4 Predicted adoption
By using the results of the question that measures the expected moment of decision, we are also
able to predict the adoption over a longer period.
However, to do such a prediction, a rather high amount of assumptions had been made.
The first assumption is that the percentage of organizations that decide to use XBRL is the same as
the percentage that have already decided (76% will decide to use, 23% will decide to use XBRL not).
The second assumption is that the implementation of XBRL will take one year; organizations that
decide in 0 – 6 months will adopt XBRL in 12 – 18 months.
The third assumption that has been made is that the organizations that already decided to use XBRL,
and expect to adopt 12 + months from now, will adopt XBRL in 12 - 18 months.
Leon Lekkerkerker
79
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Another point of weakness is that it is less presumable that the decisions are made on indicated time
than that it is presumable that the implementation is completed within the indicated time. It is not
highly presumable that the organizations have already made a detailed timetable for the decision
making process. For the implementation process is this more presumable.
The following graph and table show the prediction of XBRL adoptions, based on these assumptions.
N=699
80%
70%
60%
Adoption rate
50%
New adoptions (already decided)
40%
New adoptions (not decided yet)
Total number of adoptions
30%
20%
10%
0%
At this 0 - 6 months
moment
6 - 12
months
12 -18
months
18 -24
months
24 + months
Figure 34: predicted number of adoptions over time
At this
moment
New adoptions
(already decided)
New adoptions (not
decided yet)
Total number of
adoptions
1.29%
0-6 months
6-12 months
12-18 months
4.01%
4.86%
1.43%
5.30%
10.16%
18-24
months
24+ months
5.29%
23.32%
35.77%
16.88%
40.20%
75.97%
Table 7: predicted number of adoptions over time
The first new adoptions by organizations that have not decided yet are expected in 12 - 18 months.
The 5.29% from this type of adoptions is combined with 1.43% new adoptions by organizations that
Leon Lekkerkerker
80
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
have already decided to use XBRL. This brings the new adoptions in that period to 6.72%, and the
total number of adoptions at the end of 18 months is 16.88%. A total of 40.20% adoptions is
predicted at the end of month 24 and after 24 months this number is predicted to grow to 75.97%.
It should be kept in mind that this number is for over 24 months or more, and that there is no end of
this period identified.
5.5 XBRL adoption versus Rogers adoption curve
The measured state of adoption could be compared with the adoption curve by Rogers, to get insight
into the phase of adoption at this moment (ATM). With an adoption rate of 1.29%, the adoption of
XBRL in small and medium-sized accounting organizations in the Netherlands is in the innovation
phase at this moment.
In the figure below, the adoption curve of Rogers the current state of adoption is marked (in red).
N=699
Current
adoption
Figure 35: Current state of adoption XBRL in small and medium-sized accounting organizations in the Netherlands.
To compare the expected and the predicted adoption rate with the adoption curve of Rogers, we
make use of a graph with the cumulative number of adoptions over time. It should be kept in mind
that the (cumulative) adoption curve is not predictive. 100% do not necessarily have to be reached,
because it is possible that some organizations will never use XBRL. Another cause for not reaching
100% could be the emergence of new technologies.
As could be read from the graph below, it is expected that in 0 - 6 months, adoption reaches the
early adoption phase. Also from 6 - 12 months the adoption is in the early adoption phase.
Afterwards, XBRL enters the early majority phase where it remains up to 24 months.
Leon Lekkerkerker
81
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
N=699
Figure 36: expected and predicted state of adoption
The graph shows that in the period of 0 - 6 months and the period of 18- 24 months, the steps are
larger compared to the steps in the periods 6 - 12 and 12 - 18. We can therefore say that in the first
two mentioned periods (0-6 and 18-24) the curve of Rogers is passed through relatively more rapidly
than in the last two mentioned periods (6-12 and 12-8).
Because the model is not predictive it does not provide insight into how long it will take before the
XBRL technology has gone through the remaining part of the adoption curve and if 100% adoption
achieved.
5.6 Chapter conclusions
In this chapter is the current, expected and predicted adoption presented. These are used to answer
the main research question.
Main research question

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?
For this study, adoption is defined as the first use of the technology for operational purposes.
Current adoption
The current adoption of XBRL by Dutch accounting organizations is 1.3%. These are the
organizations that have decided to use XBRL and state that they are already using XBRL. When we
Leon Lekkerkerker
82
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
look at Roger’s adoption curve, it could be said that XBRL was in the innovation phase at the
moment of the survey.
Expected adoption
Based on the question that measures the expected moment that the implementation of XBRL is
finished, the expected adoption of XBRL is calculated. The expectation is that at the end of month 6
after the survey 5.3% of the accounting organizations will have adopted XBRL. This number is
expected to grow to 10.2% at the end of month 12 and to 11.6% in the months that follow.
Predicted adoption
the calculation of the predicted adoption the organizations that have not decided about XBRL usage
are also represented. Based on the expected moment of decision the adoption of XBRL is also
predicted over a longer period. It is assumed that 76% of these organizations will decide to use XBRL
and that it will take 12 months to implement XBRL.
When we look at the predicted adoption in month 12 to 18, we see an increase to 16.9% adoptions
in contrast with the 11.6% adoption rate from the expected adoption model for months 12 and
higher. This increase is caused by new implementations from the organizations that had not decided
at the moment of the survey. At the end of month 24, this number is increased to 40.2% and is
predicted to grow to 76% in the months that follow.
Leon Lekkerkerker
83
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
6. Acceptance of XBRL
6.1 Chapter introduction
In this chapter we will look at the results by acceptance perspective and the results for the total of all
perspectives. In chapter 4 the results are presented for all individual acceptance questions. Due to
the survey design, some questions were asked to all organizations and some questions to a selected
group of organizations, based on earlier answers.
In this chapter we will focus on the organizations that have answered all of the acceptance questions.
These are the organizations that decided to use XBRL. The calculation of the acceptance for the
organizations that have not answered all questions would provide an incomplete image of the
acceptance of XBRL in the Netherlands.
The 81 organizations on which the numbers in this chapter are based have already decided to adopt
XBRL, however the acceptance of XBRL and the continuous usage of XBRL benefits from a high score
on the operationalized factors, because these factors could influence the acceptance of XBRL.
6.2 Calculation of results
As mentioned earlier, the questions are formulated in different ways (positive or negative approach)
to avoid any influence of responders due to the way that questions are formulated.
For the calculation of the acceptance by perspective, the answers to all acceptance questions are
converted to positive, neutral or negative effects results with the use of the table mentioned in
chapter 3.2. These converted results have been added up for each organization. For a positive effect
2 points are added, for neutral 1 point, and for negative effects no points are added. The total is
divided by the maximum score so that a number between 0 and 1 is obtained.
An organization that scores 1 for a perspective, has a maximum ‘positive effect’ on the acceptance of
XBRL, because the final effects of all operationalized factors are positive. An organization with 0
points has negative final effects on all operationalized factors.
For each question the same weight is applied in the calculation. As mentioned earlier, some
acceptance factors that are marked as important by the interviewees, are represented with more
than one question. As a result these factors have a bigger influence on the total acceptance.
The acceptance scores are only calculated for the organizations that have decided to use XBRL,
because these are the only organizations for which the results all operationalized factors are
available. Therefore, the results in the overview tables could differ from the results presented in
chapter 4.
6.3 XBRL acceptance in the organizational perspective
The results show that the mean score for the organization perspective based on 81 responses is 0.58.
This is slightly above the half of the maximum possible score. The median is 0.60. 50% of the scores
are between 0.6 and 0.4. A total of 6 organizations (7.4%) scored the maximum of 1. The lowest
score is 0.2 and is scored by a total of 3 organizations (3.7%).
Leon Lekkerkerker
84
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
The following table, box and whisker plot show a summarization of these numbers.
The upper point (1.00) in the box and whisker plot is the maximum score. The next line in the plot
(0.60) represents the 3rd quartile. In the area between the upper point en the 3rd quartile lie the
upper 25% of all results.
The next line in the plot is the median. Since the 3rd quartile and the median are both 0.60 for the
organizational perspective, there is no area visible between these two lines. In other plots, this area
will be colored blue. This blue area represents another 25% of all results.
The next line at 0,40 is the 1st quartile. The area between the median and the 1st quartile is colored
red and contains another 25% of the results.
The lowest point in the plot at 0,20 represents the minimum. Between the 1st quartile and the
minimum another 25% of the results is located.
N
81
Max
1.00
3rd Quartile
0.60
Median
0.60
1st Quartile
0.40
Min
0.20
Mean
0.58
Mode
0.60
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Organization perspective
Figure 37: Table with details and ‘box and whisker plot’ of scores for the organizational perspective
The following chart provides insight into the frequency of the acceptance scores for the
organizational perspective.
On the X-axis we see the scores and on the Y-axis we see the number of organizations with that
particular score. As we see 3 organizations scored 0.20 and 2 organizations scored 0,30.
Leon Lekkerkerker
85
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
N=81
Fig 38: Frequency chart of scores for the organizational perspective.
Specification of the acceptance results for the organizational perspective
For the specification of the scores of the organizational perspective we look at the results for the
operationalized factors that are part of this perspective. The following table shows the final effects
for these factors. This table differs from the earlier table with results, because it shows the calculated
final effects and it shows only the results of the organizations that have decided to use XBRL. The
effects from the involvement of internal stakeholders are not calculated because we were unable to
determine if the effect of this operationalized factor was positive or negative.
Operationalized factor
Involvement of internal stakeholders in
decision making
Time allocated to developments
High priority level
Low costs at this moment
Lower costs over longer period
No need for flexibility
Model factor
Decision making
structure
Resources allocation
Resources allocation
Goal alignment
Goal alignment
Management style
Positive Neutral Negative
98%
33%
30%
65%
52%
5%
9%
9%
2%
67%
65%
26%
39%
Table 8: Final effects of operationalized factors for the organizational perspective. (N=81)
It is interesting to see the difference in results between all responders and the group of only the
organizations that have decided to use XBRL. The questions concerning the allocated time to XBRL
and the priority of XBRL are asked to both groups.
Leon Lekkerkerker
86
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
We saw earlier that 46% of all organizations spend time at the developments concerning XBRL and
54% does not. Of the organizations that have decided to use XBRL does 98% spend time at the
developments. Only 2% does not.
We also see that there are differences concerning the priority of XBRL. In only 7% of all organizations
XBRL has a high priority, against 33% at the organizations that have decided to use XBRL.
This means that in 67% of the organizations XBRL does not have a high priority yet. Therefore it could
be stated that the priority level could be improved in most organizations.
Another factor for improvement are the costs at this moment. 65% of the organizations scored
negative with this factor.
The attitude of the responders to the other operationalized factors was mostly positive.
6.4 XBRL acceptance in the information technology perspective
The 81 acceptance scores for the information perspective have a mean 0.50 (exactly half the
maximum score achievable). The median is also 0.50. Just like the organization perspective is 50% of
all scores between 0.6 and 0.4. There are no organizations that scored the maximum score. The
highest score is 0.9 and is scored by only 1 organization (1.2%). The lowest score is 0.2. This is scored
by a total of 2 organizations (2.4%).
The following table and box and whisker plot show a summarization of the scores.
N
81
Max
0.90
3rd Quartile
0.60
Median
0.50
1st Quartile
0.40
Min
0.10
Mean
0.50
Mode
0.50
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Information system perspective
Figure 39: Table with details and ‘box and whisker plot’ of scores for the information system perspective
The following chart provides insight into the frequency of the acceptance scores for the information
system perspective.
Leon Lekkerkerker
87
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
N=81
Figure 40: Frequency chart of scores for the information system perspective. (N=81)
Specification of the acceptance for the information system perspective
The following table shows the final effects for the factors that are part of the information system
perspective.
Operationalized factor
Knowledge level sufficient
Comprehensive amount of available
software packages
Own software supplier is well informed
Own software supplier is ready for XBRL
Own software supplier is able to follow
tempo of the organization
Sufficient collaboration with systems and
processes
Sufficient information provision:
Government and receivers
Sufficient information provision: branch
organizations
Sufficient information provision: banks
Low level of complexity of technique
Model factor
IS competency
IS facilities
Positive Neutral Negative
60%
40%
15%
10%
75%
IS facilities
IS facilities
IS facilities
75%
59%
75%
12%
6%
15%
13%
35%
10%
IS integration
33%
22%
45%
User support
30%
6%
64%
User support
32%
9%
59%
User support
IS structure
6%
54%
10%
21%
84%
25%
Table 9: Final effects of operationalized factors for the information system perspective. (N=81)
Leon Lekkerkerker
88
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
The operationalized factor ‘Knowledge level sufficient’ was presented to the organizations that have
decided to use XBRL and organizations that have not decided yet. Of these groups 80% state that
their knowledge level is still insufficient. However when we look only at the organizations that have
decided to use XBRL, we see that only 40% of these organizations state that their knowledge level is
insufficient. The other 60% states that their knowledge level is sufficient. We could state that the
level of knowledge in these organizations is higher.
When we look at the plans to improve the knowledge, we see that the organizations that have
decided to use XBRL have more plans to improve the knowledge in their organization.
The figure below shows the plans of the 32 organizations that have decided to use XBRL and that
state that their knowledge is insufficient.
As we see, 78% is planning to increase their knowledge with the use of websites. For all organizations
that state that they have insufficient knowledge, this result was 62%. We also see that 69% is
planning to follow courses against 55% of all organizations and that 44% is planning to hire specialists
against 21% of all organizations that state that their knowledge is insufficient.
Way of increasing knowlegde
Yes
31%
N=32
No
22%
56%
69%
78%
44%
Follow courses
From websites
Hire specialists
Figure 41: Ways of increasing knowledge by organizations that have decided to use XBRL.
The other operationalized factors were only presented to the organizations that have decided to use
XBRL. We are therefore not able to compare the results from this group with the results from all
organizations. However it is still interesting to look at the possibilities to improve the acceptance for
the information system perspective.
One of the major points of improvement is the information provision concerning XBRL. None of the
information providers is rated positively. Especially the scores for the banks are low. 84% of the
organizations that have decided to use XBRL are negative about the information provision of the
banks. The information provision by the ‘Government and receivers’ and the branch organizations is
rated better with 64% and 59% negative ratings respectively.
Leon Lekkerkerker
89
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Another point about which the responders are negative is the amount of available software
packages. 75% is of the opinion that the available amount of software packages is not
comprehensive. However 59% states that their own software supplier is ready is for XBRL.
A last point about which the responders are negative is the collaboration of XBRL with the current
systems and processes. 45% of all organizations that have decided to use XBRL are negative about
the collaboration. It is possible that these rating will be improved when more software becomes
available or when current software will be improved.
6.5 XBRL acceptance in the user perspective
The results of the survey show that the mean score for the user perspective based on 81 responses is
0.42. This is below half of the maximal possible score. The median is 0.36. 50% of the scores are
between 0.29 and 0.57. No organizations scored the maximum of 1. Three (3) organizations (3,4%)
scored 0.86. The lowest score is 0.07 and is scored by a total of 2 organizations (2.5%).
N
81
Max
0.86
3rd Quartile
0.57
Median
0.36
1st Quartile
0.29
Min
0.07
Mean
0.42
Mode
0.29
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
User perspective
Figure 42: Table with details and box and whisker plot of scores for the user perspective.
The following chart provides insight into the frequency of the acceptance scores for the user
perspective.
Leon Lekkerkerker
90
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
N=81
Figure 43: Frequency chart of scores for the user perspective. (N=81)
Specification of the acceptance for the user perspective
The following table shows the final effects for the factors that are part of the user perspective.
Operationalized factor
Easily to read by humans
Main placement of advantages at own
organization
Making estimations is possible
Suitable for proposed tasks
Customers want organization to use XBRL
XBRL could mean something now
No problem if obligatory
Model factor
Perceived ease of use
Job relevance
Positive Neutral Negative
19%
39%
42%
20%
2%
78%
Result demonstrability
Output quality
Subjective norm
Image
Voluntariness
23%
62%
31%
53%
21%
10%
22%
28%
16%
6%
67%
16%
41%
31%
73%
Table 10: Final effects of operationalized factors for the user concerned perspective. (N=81)
All these factors are only proposed to the organizations that have decided to use XBRL. Therefore, we
are not able to compare these results with organizations that have not decided yet or have decided
not to use XBRL.
When we look at the outcome of the factors, we see that 5 of the 7 factors are rated negatively.
The main placement of advantages is rated the most negative, with 78% of the organizations that are
of the opinion that the most advantages of XBRL are not for the organization itself, but for other
parties.
Leon Lekkerkerker
91
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Another factor about which the responders are negative is the readability of XBRL by humans.
42% is negative and 39% is neutral, while only 19% of the organizations are positive about this
operationalized factor.
Further, 67% of the organizations state that they find it difficult to make estimations concerning XBRL
usage. It also turned out that 41% of the organizations experience no demand for XBRL from
customers.
Finally, 73% of the organizations state that they want to keep it possible in the future to hand in
financial information without making use of XBRL.
6.6 XBRL acceptance in general
For the acceptance of XBRL in general an index score is also calculated. The calculation is the same as
for the acceptance perspectives, but in this calculation the results are based on all operationalized
factors. For the general acceptance (referred to as the ‘acceptance total’) the minimum score is also
0 and the maximum score, for entirely positive rating, is also 1.
The average of the 81 responders that have decided to use XBRL is 0.49 and the scores are
approximately normally divided. The median is 0.48 and 50% of the scores lie between 0.57 and 0.41.
There are no organizations that scored the maximum or minimum score. The highest score is 0.82
and is scored by only 1 organization (1.2%). The lowest score is 0.20 and is also scored by only 1
organization.
The following table and box and whisker plot show a summarization of the scores.
N
81
Max
0.82
3rd Quartile
0.57
Median
0.48
1st Quartile
0.41
Min
0.20
Mean
0.49
Mode
0.45
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Acceptance total
Figure 44: Table with details and box and whisker plot of scores for the total acceptance of XBRL.
The following table shows the final scores for the total acceptance of XBRL.
Leon Lekkerkerker
92
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
N=81
Figure 45: Frequency table of the scores at the total acceptance (N=81)
The 81 organizations on which the numbers in this chapter are based have already decided to adopt
XBRL. However the acceptance of XBRL and the continuous usage of XBRL benefits from a high score
on the operationalized factors, because these factors could influence the acceptance of XBRL.
With scores around the average there is still enough space for improvement. The tables earlier in this
chapter give an overview of all scores by operationalized factor. Especially with the user perspective
much improvement is possible, because the scores in that perspective are quite low (below the half
of the maximum achievable score). The scores from the information technology are about the half of
the maximum score and the organization perspective has the best scores, which are a little above the
half of the maximum achievable score. However, as we saw earlier, in these two perspectives
improvement is also possible.
It will be interesting to see how the developments concerning XBRL will develop over time and what
the effects are on the factors, the perspectives and the total acceptance.
Leon Lekkerkerker
93
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
6.7 Chapter conclusions
In this chapter we looked at the acceptance of XBRL in general and at the acceptance of XBRL
specified for the organizational, information system and user concerned acceptance perspective.
Based on these results we are able to complete the answer to the main research question.
Main research question

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?
Acceptance is defined as the continuous use of a technique, in this case XBRL. There is no definition
that states at which moment a technology could be considered as accepted. However, in literature
we have found several models that identify factors of influence on the decision to continue with the
use of a technology. These factors are operationalized and measured via a survey. Based on the
answers of the survey we were able to measure the influence that an organizations experience at
the decision concerning XBRL acceptance.
In this study the integrated technology acceptance model of Reumerman has been used.
In chapter 4 the results presented are for all organizations that have responded to the survey. In this
chapter we focused on the results for the 81 organizations that have decided to use XBRL. These
organizations have answered all questions that are used to measure the acceptance in contrast to
the organizations that have not decided to use XBRL or have decided not to use XBRL.
To measure the acceptance of XBRL by Dutch accounting organizations, the results to the individual
questions are converted to a global index number. This number ranges between 1 and 0. An
organization that scores 1 is expected to experience positive influence in the decision about XBRL
acceptance for all operationalized factors. An organization that scores 0 is expected to experience
no positive influences and is therefore less likely to accept and continue the usage of XBRL.
Acceptance in general
For the acceptance of XBRL in general, in which all operationalized factors are represented, the 81
organizations score a mean of 0.49. The scores are approximately normal divided. The median is
0.48 and 50% of the scores lie between 0.57 and 0.41. The most scored number is 0.45. There are no
organizations that scored the maximum or minimum score. The highest score is 0.82 and is scored
by only 1 organization (1.2%). The lowest score is 0.20 and is also scored by only 1 organization.
Acceptance by acceptance perspective
For more detailed results, we looked at the index number calculated for each of the three
acceptance perspectives. In each calculation the factors are only represented which are part of the
particular perspective.
When we look at the scores by perspective, we see that the organizations that have responded
score above average with a mean of 0.58 at the organization perspective. The mean scores for the IT
perspective are average with 0.50. At the user perspective, the accounting organizations scored less
than average, with a score of 0.42.
Leon Lekkerkerker
94
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Organizational perspective
We see that most organizations state that XBRL does not have a high priority within their
organization and that implementation of XBRL does not cause lower costs at this moment.
Improvement of these factors could cause a more positive influence on the decision to accept XBRL.
As positive points, we see also that 98% of the organizations that have decided to use XBRL allocate
time to the developments concerning XBRL and that 65% of the organizations expect lower costs
over a longer period due to the use of XBRL.
Information technology perspective
A lot of organizations (75%) are still negative about the amount of available software packages that
support XBRL. However, most organizations are positive about their own software supplier. 75% is
of the opinion that their own software supplier is well informed, 59% state that their software
supplier is ready for XBRL and 75% believes that their software supplier is able to follow the tempo
of changes of the organizations.
Accounting organizations are more negative about information provision. The information provision
by the government and receivers, the branch organizations, and the banks are rated negatively with
64%, 56% and 84% respectively. 60% is positive about the current level of knowledge in the
organizations.
About the collaboration of XBRL with current systems and processes organizations are slightly more
negative than positive (45% against 33%), however most organizations (54%) are positive about the
complexity of the XBRL technique.
User perspective
Most organizations (62%) are positive about the suitability of XBRL to perform fast and easy tax
announcement reporting, sending information to the CBS and depositing information at the KVK.
However, 78% of the organizations are of the opinion that the main advantages are not placed at
their own organizations. In contrast, 53% of the organizations still believe that XBRL could mean
something for the organization at this moment.
67% of the organizations state that they find it difficult to make estimations about the results of
XBRL usage in the future and most organizations (73%) think that it must be possible in the future to
hand in information without the use of XBRL.
The number of organizations that receive demand from customers for XBRL services is low (31%).
42% of the organizations are of the opinion that it is a disadvantage that XBRL is not easily readable
by humans.
Leon Lekkerkerker
95
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
7. Global conclusions and further research
In the conclusion of this study, we will look at the answers to each research question, because they
give a clear overview of the outcomes of this study and how these outcomes are reached.
7.1 XBRL and the Dutch market of small and medium-sized accounting
organizations
Sub-research question 1
1. What is XBRL and what does it mean for accounting organizations?
XBRL is the abbreviation for eXtensible Business Reporting Language. XBRL is a method for digital
exchange of financial information. There are two types of XBRL: XBRL-FR and XBRL-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 higher level of detail.
For the exchange of XBRL in the Netherlands the OTP (Overheidstransactiepoort – Government
transaction gateway) is used. Involved parties in XBRL developments are direct users including
accounting organizations, companies and receivers of XBRL, but also other parties such as the
Dutch government. XBRL brings changes in the form of digitalization, standardization and safety.
Also the way that (accounting) organizations work will change.
Sub-research question 2
2. How does the Dutch small- and medium-sized accounting organizations market look
like?
Dutch small- and medium sized organizations are organizations with a maximum of 250
employees and include the micro, small and medium sized companies (as defined by the
European Commission). In the Dutch market several branch organizations and professional
associations are active including the NIVRA, NOvAA, CB, FB, NOB. Based on the information of
the NIVRA, there are about 3275 accounting organizations in the Netherlands.
7.2 Measurement of adoption and acceptance of XBRL
Sub-research question 3
3. Which models are available for adoption and acceptance measurement?
It is important to make a distinction between adoption and acceptance. The goal of this study
was to measure the adoption as well as the acceptance of XBRL.
Adoption and acceptance are sequential steps in the acceptance process. Adoption covers the
acquisition, implementation and the (first) use of the system. Acceptance is the continuous use
of the technology.
Because adoption is a specific moment in time it could be easily measured via a survey. We could
state that organizations that use XBRL in daily operations have adopted XBRL.
Leon Lekkerkerker
96
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Acceptance is not a specific moment in time. There is no definition found in literature that
provides information about the moment that a technology could be considered as accepted.
However, in literature different models are found that provide insight into the factors that
influence the acceptance. These factors influence the decision about the continuation of the use
of the information system.
In 2006 Reumerman [REUMERM06] developed an integrated acceptance model with an
organizational, a technical and a user-concerned perspective. This model contains a total of 18
factors, which was to be the base for the measurement of XBRL acceptance.
Sub-research question 4
5. How could the adoption and acceptance of XBRL be measured for small and medium-sized
accounting organizations in the Netherlands?
The factors found in theory had to be operationalized for the use in the field of XBRL and the
attitude of accounting toward these factors had to be measured for this study.
The process of operationalization started with an operationalization, based on the literature
research. After this first operationalization some interviews were held with XBRL professionals in
the Netherlands. The purpose of these interviews was to improve the operationalized factors and to
apply weight to the factors. Also, these interviews were used to select interesting questions for the
survey. Based on the outcomes of these interviews the operationalizations were improved and a list
was composed with proposed measurement questions. This list has been reconciled with J. Pasmooij
of the NIVRA. Finally, an internet survey was created. This survey is supported and spread by the
NIVRA, NOvAA, CB, FB and the NOB amongst all Dutch accounting organizations in January 2010.
Sub-research question 5
6.
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?
The survey carried out for this study could be divided into two major parts. The first part of the
survey contained general measurement questions, which are used for measuring characteristics of
the accounting organizations, like size, field of activities and memberships of branch organizations.
Also the state of the decision was measured.
Most of these factors are presented via statements and some via questions. Details about the
operationalization and final measurement questions could be found in chapter 3.
Response
The survey has been spread amongst all 3275 accounting organizations in the Netherlands. 708
organizations responded to this survey. The response rate is 21,6%.
699 of these 708 organizations fell under the definition of small and medium sized organizations.
The responses of the 9 larger organizations are not represented in the presented results.
Usage decision
Leon Lekkerkerker
97
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
85% (of the organizations that responded to the survey) has not yet decided about XBRL usage. 15%
has already made a decision. 76% of the organizations that has made a decision have decided to use
XBRL. 24% has decided that they will not use XBRL (yet).
7.3 Adoption and acceptance of XBRL
Main research question

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?
Adoption
For this study adoption is defined as the first use of the technology for operational purposes.
Current adoption
The current adoption of XBRL by Dutch accounting organizations is 1.3%. These are the
organizations that have decided to use XBRL and state that they are already using XBRL. When we
look at Roger’s adoption curve, it could be said that XBRL was the innovation phase at the moment
of the survey.
Expected adoption
Based on the question that measures the expected moment that the implementation of XBRL is
finished the expected adoption of XBRL is calculated. The expectation is that at the end of month 6
after the survey 5.3% of the accounting organizations will have adopted XBRL. This number is
expected to grow to 10.2% at the end of month 12 and to 11.6% in the months that follow.
Predicted adoption
The organizations that have yet not decided about XBRL usage are also included in the calculation of
the predicted adoption. It is assumed that 76% of these organizations will decide to use XBRL and
that it will take 12 months to implement XBRL.
When we look at the predicted adoption in months 12 to 18, we see an increase to 16.9%
adoptions, in contrast with the 11.6% adoption rate from the expected adoption model for months
12 and higher. This rise is caused by new implementations from the organizations that had not
decided at the moment of the survey. At the end of month 24, this number is increased to 40.2%
and is predicted to increase to 76% in the months that follow.
Acceptance
Acceptance is defined as the continuous use of a technique, in this case XBRL. Based on the answers
of the survey we were able to measure the influence that organizations experience over the
decision concerning XBRL acceptance.
The acceptance is calculated for the 81 organizations that have decided to use XBRL. To measure
the acceptance of XBRL by Dutch accounting organizations, the results to the individual questions
are converted to a general index number. This number ranges between 1 and 0. An organizations
that scores 1 is expected to experience positive influence in the decision about XBRL acceptance for
all operationalized factors. An organization that scores 0 is expected to experience no positive
Leon Lekkerkerker
98
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
influences and is therefore less likely to accept and continue the usage of XBRL.
Acceptance in general
For the acceptance of XBRL in general, in which all operationalized factors are represented, the 81
organizations score a mean of 0.49. The scores are approximately normal divided. The median is
0.48 and 50% of the scores lie between 0.57 and 0.41. The most scored number is 0.45. There are
no organizations that scored the maximum or minimum score. The highest score is 0.82 and is
scored by only 1 organization (1.2%). The lowest score is 0.20 and is also scored by only 1
organization.
Acceptance by acceptance perspective
For more detailed results, we looked at the index number calculated for each of the three
acceptance perspectives. In each calculation only the factors are represented which are part of the
particular perspective.
When we look at the scores by perspective, we see that the organizations that have responded
score above average with a mean of 0.58 at the organization perspective. The mean scores for the
IT perspective are average, with 0.50. At the user perspective, the accounting organizations scored
less than average, with a score of 0.42.
Detailed results for each operationalized factor could be found in chapters 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5.
Correlations between results
The results of the different questions were analyzed for correlations. The following interesting
correlations are based on all responses of organizations that fell in the MKB definition.



During the interviews several interviewees indicated that they expect that larger
organizations are more likely to have already decided, and decided to use XBRL, compared
to smaller organizations. However, an absence correlation was found between the state of
decision and the size of the organization (rho = 0.157, df = 698, p < 0.001). This indicates
that there are no significant differences in the state of decision between organizations of
different sizes.
Further analysis of the results showed a correlation between the moment that an
organization expects to decide about XBRL and the size of an organization. (rho = -0.320, df
= 592, p < 0.001). This means that larger organizations are planning to make this decision
significantly sooner than smaller organizations.
The results suggest that the costs of the implementation and (temporary) increase in costs
due to the implementation are not major obstacles for the decision to use XBRL. We saw
that 65% of the organizations that are actually implementing has a negative attitude
towards the cost of XBRL at this moment, however these costs seem not to be a major
obstacle to implement XBRL. We saw also that for 74% of the organizations that have
decided not to use XBRL, the costs were not a reason for this decision.
Leon Lekkerkerker
99
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
7.4 Weaknesses in this study
Although this study has been carried out with care, it was not possible to carry out all desired
activities and all desired analysis, because of the available time, available information, or due to
requirements from other parties.
Because of this, the study knows a number of weaknesses. The most important weaknesses are
mentioned below.



The most questions about acceptance are only asked to the organizations that have decided
to use XBRL. Strictly seen, this corresponds with the definition of the acceptance, which
states that the technique could be only accepted by organizations that use the technique.
However, as a result of this decision we are unable to compare the answers to the
acceptance questions with the organizations that have not decided, or the organizations that
have decided not to use XBRL. For this reason we are also unable to make any statements
about the most important reasons for the decision to use XBRL.
The weight of factors and specific subjects of measurements was unknown. For this study the
weight is based on the interviews with XBRL professionals in the Netherlands. However, the
outcomes of these interviews represent only a small part of the opinions of accounting
organizations.
There are rather many assumptions made for the prediction of the adoption of XBRL. The
accuracy of this prediction is therefore not optimal.
7.5 Further research
In chapter 3 a number of points for consideration are mentioned for further research into the
adoption and acceptance of XBRL. The most important points are:



For each factor it should be assessed if the question that is chosen for this survey is still
relevant for another survey. Some of the questions are more focused on adoption, instead of
acceptance. Although a technique first has to be adopted, before it could be accepted, asking
specific questions about the acceptance could be more interesting for measuring the
acceptance of XBRL.
One could also consider asking questions about adoption and acceptance also to the
organizations that have not decided yet, or have decided not to use XBRL. As a result, it will
become possible to compare the results between these groups and the group that has
decided to use XBRL. This could give more insight into the reasons and important factors that
influenced the decision.
Another point is the weight of the factors. One could consider doing extra research on the
weight of the factors. Another possibility is adding questions about the weight to the survey.
Leon Lekkerkerker
100
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
8. References
[ACCAGE01] US auditors worry about XBRL costs, Barbara Buchanan at Accountancyage.com
http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2216676/auditors-worry-xbrl-costs
[ACCNL01] Accounant.nl
http://www.accountant.nl/
[ACCWEB01] XBRL comes of age, Accountingweb.com
http://www.accountingweb.com/cgibin/item.cgi?id=105104&d=883&h=884&f=882&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y
[AZARIA07] XBRL, From Theory and Perception to Practice, Jaron Azaria, May 2007.
[BENMOR88] Information Technology, Integration, and Organizational Change, R.I. Benjamin and
M.S. Scott Morton, Interfaces, vol. 18, No. 3, Strategic management 1988, page 86-98.
[BISS2009] Invloed van XBRL op de accounting praktijk, Mark Bisschop, 2009
[CB01] Website of the CB
http://www.cb.nl/
[CBS01] Website of the CBS
http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/informatie/deelnemers-enquetes/bedrijveninstellingen/nederlandse-taxonomie/faq/default.htm
[CHS04] XBRL-Acceptatie is een kwestie van tijd, F. Conijn, M de Haas, A. Stroom, Controlling nr 11,
november 2004, p 43-46
http://www.xbrl-nederland.nl/upload/21/artikel_boekje_Kluwer_XBRL.pdf
[COMP01] Computable.nl: CBS krijgt wel Xbrl, J. van Wijngaarden, 2004
http://www.computable.nl/artikel/ict_topics/internet/1374949/1282763/cbs-krijgt-wel-xbrl.html
[COMP02] Computable.nl: Banken kiezen XBRL voor kredietrapportage, J de Rooij, 2009
http://www.computable.nl/artikel/ict_topics/overheid/3156225/1277202/banken-kiezen-xbrl-voorkredietrapportage.html
[CONNO79] Planning a New Cost System: the 'Unfreezing' Stage, H.A. Connolly, Management
Accounting Nov 1979; 61, 5; ABI/INFORM Global page 19 -24
[DGLS2009] Financial advantages and disadvantages of the use of XBRL, P. van Dongen, R.
Granneman, L. Lekkerkerker, R. Steens, 2009
[EC01] De nieuwe definitie van KMO’s, Website of the European Commission
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/enterprise_policy/sme_definition/sme_user_guide_nl.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/enterprise_policy/sme_definition/index_en.htm
[EIONET01] Website of European Environment Agency.
http://www.eionet.europa.eu/gemet/concept?langcode=en&cp=8340&ns=1
[FB01] Website of the FB
http://www.fb.nl
[FREEDIC] Free dictionary website by Farlex
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/
[Front page, pictures]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8124568@N02/1431577013/
http://businesswired.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/xbrl_logo.jpg
[GRAND91] The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy..., R.M.
Grant, California Management Review; Spring 1991; 33, 3.
Leon Lekkerkerker
101
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
[GROVER03] An Empirically Derived Model for the Adoption of Customer-based Interorganizational
Systems, V. Grover, 2003, Decision Sciences, Volume 24 Issue 3, Pages 603 - 640
[HSAKM03] The impact of organizational factors on information systems success: An empirical
investigation in the Malaysian electronic-government agencies, R. Hussein, M.H. Selamat, R.B. Anom,
N.S.A. Karim, A. Mamat, 2003
[HIGHB01] XBRL's acceptance struggle parallels, Website Highbeam
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1S1-1202170003489901.html
[IASB01] Website of the International Accounting Standards Board.
http://www.iasb.org/IASCFCMS/Templates/Admin/WorkPlan.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEG
UID=%7bD24D1819-D02C-4833-96CDAB8E888FCB54%7d&NRORIGINALURL=%2fXBRL%2fResources%2fFundamentals%2ehtm&NRCACHEH
INT=Guest#REFERENCE
[JOURACC01] XBRL, it’s unstoppable, Robert Tie at website Journal of Accountancy
http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2005/Aug/XbrlItsUnstoppable.htm
[KOLLM06] Attitude, adoption or acceptance? – measuring the market success of telecommunication
and multimedia technology, T. Kollmann, 2004
[KVK01] Website of the Chambre of Commerce
http://www.kvk.nl/handelsregister/041_Registreren_in_handelsregister/deponerenjaarrekening/Int
ermediairsdeponerenjaarrekeningelektronischbijdeKvK.asp
[LEVAS01] People Skills: Change Management Tools - Lewin’s Change Model, R.E. Levasseur,
Interfaces 31: 4 July–August 2001 (pp. 71–73)
[LOGIUS01] Website of Logius
http://www.logius.nl/
[MINEZPVAR01] Ministerie van economische zaken, Plan van aanpak regeldruk 2007-2011 (pdf)
[MINEZVOOR01] Ministerie van economische zaken, Voortgang (pdf)
[MKBNED01] Website of MKB Nederland
http://www.mkb.nl/index.php?pageID=27
[NIVRA01] Website of the Nivra
http://www.nivra.nl/
[NOB01] Website of the NOB
http://www.nob.net/
[NOVAA01] Website of the NOvAA
http://www.novaa.nl/
[PIJLS07] Het datamodel van XBRL, W. Pijls, September 2007
[PLEINP01] XBRL: in België is het beter, Gerard Bottemanne, Onderzoeksbureau GBNED
http://www.pleinplus.nl/default.asp?docID=7514&blog=1&ond=blogarchief
[Q4BLOG01] XBRL GAAP Taxonomy getting ready for market acceptance, Website Q4blog
http://www.q4blog.com/2007/09/26/xbrl-gaap-taxonomy-getting-ready-for-market-acceptance/
[REUMERM06] Technology Acceptance, a level higher. Reumerman. December 2006
[REUTERS01] Reuters.com
http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSWAT00947920080514
[ROGERS62] Diffusion of Innovations, E. Rogers, 1962
[TANSCH58] How To Choose a Leadership Pattern, R. Tannenbaum and W.H. Schmidt, Harvard
Business Review March 1, 1958
Leon Lekkerkerker
102
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
[THEIRA01] Benchmarking the benefits and barriers of application integration, M. Themistocleous
and Z. Irani, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2001, page 317-331.
[XBRL2.1] Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) 2.1, Website of XBRL international.
http://www.xbrl.org/Specification/XBRL-RECOMMENDATION-2003-12-31+Corrected-Errata-2008-0702.htm
[XBRLINT01] Website of XBRL International
http://www.xbrl.org/
[XBRLNL01] Website of XBRL Nederland
http://www.xbrl-nederland.nl/
http://www.xbrl-nederland.nl/upload/21/pub/Taxonomiebrochure_XBRL_NL_Web.pdf
[XBRLNTP01] Website of the Dutch Taxonomy project.
http://www.xbrl-ntp.nl/english/pressrelease1/
[XBRLNTP02] XBRL-NTP document: Ondertekening convenanten opmaat naar grootschalige
aanlevering in XBRL.
www.xbrl-ntp.nl/Nieuws/Eindejaarsbijeenkomst.pdf
[XBRLNTP03] Architectuur Nederlandse Taxonomie 2007 versie 1.0 (pdf), Website of Dutch
Taxonomy project
http://www.xbrl-ntp.nl/
[XBRLNTP01] Procesinfrastructuur, Website of the Dutch taxonomy project
http://www.xbrl-ntp.nl/PI/
[XBRLPLAN01] Website XBRLplanet.org
http://www.xbrlplanet.org/
Leon Lekkerkerker
103
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Appendix A. XBRL survey ‘Are accountants and taxation specialists
ready for XBRL?’
This appendix contains the survey as it has been amongst the accounting organizations and the news
article that has been published on the website of the NIVRA. Both are written in Dutch.
Appendix A.1. Nieuwsbericht op NIVRA website
Enquête over XBRL onder accountants en fiscalisten
14 januari 2010 - De beroepsorganisaties NIVRA, NOvAA, NOB, CB en NFB willen graag weten of hun
leden klaar zijn voor de verwachte stijging in het gebruik van XBRL. Daarom houden zij in
samenwerking met de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam een enquête onder de aangesloten
accountants en fiscalisten. De verwachting is dat het gebruik van XBRL dit jaar flink zal stijgen. De
banken ABN-AMRO, Rabobank en ING hebben namelijk in november 2009 een overeenkomst
getekend met staatssecretaris Heemskerk van Economische Zaken over het gebruik van XBRL / SBR
voor de aanlevering van financiële informatie per 1 april 2010.
Een succesvolle invoering van XBRL hangt mede af van hoe optimaal accountants en fiscalisten
gebruikmaken van de mogelijkheden van XBRL. De uitkomsten van de enquête geven de
beroepsorganisaties inzicht in welke problemen en knelpunten accountants en fiscalisten nog
ervaren bij de invoering en het gebruik van XBRL.
De beroepsorganisaties hebben accountants- en belastingadvieskantoren benaderd om mee te doen
aan de enquête. De uitkomsten van het onderzoek en eventueel daaruit voortvloeiende acties
worden via de deelnemende beroepsorganisaties bekendgemaakt.
Contactpersoon NIVRA:
Jan Pasmooij RA RE RO
manager ICT Knowledge Center Koninklijk NIVRA
E: j.pasmooij@nivra.nl
Appendix A.2. Enquête
1. We beginnen met drie algemene vragen over uw organisatie.
Wat is de omvang van uw organisatie?
 Eén persoon
 Tussen 2 en 5 medewerkers
 Tussen 6 en 20 medewerkers
 Tussen 21 en 50 medewerkers
 Tussen 51 en 100 medewerkers
 Tussen 101 en 250 medewerkers
 Meer dan 250 medewerkers
2. Uw organisatie is werkzaam in...
(meerdere antwoorden mogelijk)
 Administratieve dienstverlening
 Samenstelpraktijk
Leon Lekkerkerker
104
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]

March 3th 2011
Fiscale (advies)praktijk
3. Van welke organisaties zijn professionals in uw organisatie lid?
(meerdere antwoorden mogelijk)
 NIVRA
 NOvAA
 NOB
 CB
 FB
4. Wilt u onderstaande vragen over het belang van XBRL voor uw organisatie beantwoorden?
Subvraag A: Besteedt uw organisatie aandacht aan de ontwikkelingen m.b.t. XBRL?
 Ja
 Nee
Subvraag B: Heeft XBRL prioriteit boven andere ontwikkelingen?
 Ja
 Nee
Subvraag C: Zijn alle interne stakeholders betrokken bij de besluitvorming over het gebruik van
XBRL?
 Ja
 Nee
Subvraag D: Heeft uw organisatie al een beslissing genomen over het gebruik van XBRL?
 Ja
 Nee
5. Waarom heeft uw organisatie nog geen besluit genomen over het gebruik van XBRL?
(Als 4D = Nee)
(meerdere antwoorden mogelijk)
 Onvoldoende informatie over het gebruik van XBRL en de mogelijkheden
 Niet duidelijk of XBRL een succes wordt
 De klanten vragen er (nog) niet om
 Nog niet verplicht
 Andere reden (graag toelichten)
6. Wanneer verwacht u dat uw organisatie over het gebruik van XBRL zal beslissen?
(Als 4D = Nee)
 Binnen 6 maanden
 Binnen 6 maanden tot één jaar
 Over meer dan één jaar
Leon Lekkerkerker
105
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
7. Wat is de uitkomst van de besluitvorming over het gebruik van XBRL?
(Als 4D = Ja)
 Onze organisatie heeft besloten XBRL te (gaan) gebruiken
 Onze organisatie heeft besloten XBRL niet te (gaan) gebruiken
8. Waarom heeft uw organisatie besloten XBRL te (gaan) gebruiken?
(Als 7 = Gebruiken)
(meerdere antwoorden mogelijk)
 Door XBRL kunnen wij een strategisch voordeel realiseren
 Met XBRL kunnen wij huidige processen optimaler inrichten en daardoor efficiënter werken
en kosten besparen
 Mijn klanten verwachten dat ik XBRL kan gebruiken
 Ik verwacht dat het op termijn verplicht wordt
 Ik ga erin mee omdat ik verwacht dat mijn concurrenten het gaan gebruiken
9. Waarom heeft uw organisatie besloten XBRL (nog) niet te gaan gebruiken?
(Als 7 = Niet Gebruiken)
(meerdere antwoorden mogelijk)
 De praktijk wordt op korte termijn beëindigd of verkocht/fusie
 Niet overtuigd dat XBRL het zal gaan maken
 Het gebruik van XBRL is niet verplicht
 Ziet geen toegevoegde waarde in het gebruik van XBRL
 Invoering van XBRL is te complex
 Invoering van XBRL is te kostbaar
 Andere reden (graag toelichting)
10. In welk stadium van het XBRL-implementatieproces bevindt uw organisatie zich?
(Als 7 = Gebruiken)
 Nog geen onderzoek gestart naar de impact en mogelijkheden van XBRL
 Onderzoek gestart naar de impact en mogelijkheden van XBRL
 Bezig met selectie van software en voorbereiding implementatie
 Bezig met implementatie van XBRL en aanpassing van de processen
 De organisatie is klaar voor het gebruik van XBRL
 De organisatie maakt al gebruik van XBRL
11. Wanneer verwacht u gereed te zijn?
(Als 10 = Geen onderzoek, onderzoek gestart, bezig met selectie of bezig met implementatie).
 Binnen 6 maanden
 Binnen 6 maanden tot één jaar
 Over meer dan één jaar
12. Voor welke dienstverlening gaat uw organisatie XBRL gebruiken of gebruikt u al XBRL?
Leon Lekkerkerker
106
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
(meerdere antwoorden mogelijk)
 Deponeren van jaarstukken
Belastingaangifte(n)
Verkorte winstaangifte VPB (vWIA VPB)
 Bankenrapportage (beschikbaar op 1 april 2010)
 Verkorte winstaangifte IB (vWIA IB) (beschikbaar eind 2010)
 Anders (graag toelichten)
13. Impact van XBRL op uw organisatie.
In hoeverre bent u het eens met onderstaande stellingen?
Subvraag: Het invoeren van XBRL vereist op dit moment een hoge mate van flexibiliteit van onze
organisatie
 Ja
 Nee
 Weet niet
13. Impact van XBRL op uw organisatie.
In hoeverre bent u het eens met onderstaande stellingen?
Subvraag: Het invoeren van XBRL betekent op dit moment een verhoging van mijn kosten
 Ja
 Nee
 Weet niet
13. Impact van XBRL op uw organisatie.
In hoeverre bent u het eens met onderstaande stellingen?
Subvraag: De voordelen van XBRL zijn vooral voor de ontvangers (Belastingdienst, CBS, KvK) en
slechts beperkt voor mijn organisatie
 Ja
 Nee
 Weet niet
13. Impact van XBRL op uw organisatie.
In hoeverre bent u het eens met onderstaande stellingen?
Subvraag: De voor- en nadelen van XBRL op lange termijn kunnen wij op dit moment al goed
inschatten
 Ja
 Nee
 Weet niet
13. Impact van XBRL op uw organisatie.
In hoeverre bent u het eens met onderstaande stellingen?
Subvraag: Wij verwachten dat het gebruik van XBRL (op termijn) zal leiden tot meer efficiëntie en
daardoor lagere kosten
Leon Lekkerkerker
107
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]



March 3th 2011
Ja
Nee
Weet niet
13. Impact van XBRL op uw organisatie.
In hoeverre bent u het eens met onderstaande stellingen?
Subvraag: Onze klanten willen dat wij XBRL gebruiken
 Ja
 Nee
 Weet niet
13. Impact van XBRL op uw organisatie.
In hoeverre bent u het eens met onderstaande stellingen?
Subvraag: Het zal nog een aantal jaar duren voordat XBRL werkelijk iets kan betekenen voor onze
organisatie
 Ja
 Nee
 Weet niet
13. Impact van XBRL op uw organisatie.
In hoeverre bent u het eens met onderstaande stellingen?
Subvraag: Mijn organisatie vindt dat het mogelijk moet blijven om financiële gegevens in te dienen
bij ontvangers zonder gebruik te maken van XBRL
 Ja
 Nee
 Weet niet
14. Uw ervaringen met XBRL.
In hoeverre bent u het eens met onderstaande stellingen?
Subvraag: Invoeren van XBRL is moeilijk vanwege de complexiteit van de techniek
 Ja
 Nee
 Weet niet
14. Uw ervaringen met XBRL.
In hoeverre bent u het eens met onderstaande stellingen?
Subvraag: Het aantal beschikbare softwarepakketten in de markt dat XBRL ondersteunt is nog
beperkt
 Ja
 Nee
 Weet niet
14. Uw ervaringen met XBRL.
Leon Lekkerkerker
108
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
In hoeverre bent u het eens met onderstaande stellingen?
Subvraag: Mijn softwareleverancier is onvoldoende op de hoogte van de mogelijkheden van XBRL
 Ja
 Nee
 Weet niet
14. Uw ervaringen met XBRL.
In hoeverre bent u het eens met onderstaande stellingen?
Subvraag: Mijn softwareleverancier is nog niet klaar voor XBRL
 Ja
 Nee
 Weet niet
14. Uw ervaringen met XBRL.
In hoeverre bent u het eens met onderstaande stellingen?
Subvraag: Mijn softwareleverancier is niet in staat om het veranderingstempo van mijn kantoor te
volgen en op tijd de benodigde functionaliteit te leveren
 Ja
 Nee
 Weet niet
14. Uw ervaringen met XBRL.
In hoeverre bent u het eens met onderstaande stellingen?
Subvraag: XBRL-oplossingen werken nog onvoldoende samen met onze huidige systemen en
processen
 Ja
 Nee
 Weet niet
14. Uw ervaringen met XBRL.
In hoeverre bent u het eens met onderstaande stellingen?
Subvraag: De XBRL-technologie en de OTP (OverheidsTransactiePoort) zijn geschikt om snel en
eenvoudig belastingaangifte te doen, informatie te versturen naar het CBS en financiële gegevens te
deponeren bij de KVK
 Ja
 Nee
 Weet niet
14. Uw ervaringen met XBRL.
In hoeverre bent u het eens met onderstaande stellingen?
Subvraag: Het is nog niet eenvoudig genoeg om XBRL-berichten (instances) leesbaar te maken voor
mensen
 Ja
Leon Lekkerkerker
109
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]


March 3th 2011
Nee
Weet niet
15. Voorlichting.
In hoeverre bent u het eens met onderstaande stellingen?
Subvraag: De overheid en uitvragende partijen (Belastingdienst, CBS, KVK) hebben een belangrijke
rol bij het verstrekken van informatie over (het gebruik van) XBRL
 Eens
 Oneens
 Weet niet
15. Voorlichting.
In hoeverre bent u het eens met onderstaande stellingen?
Subvraag: De overheid en uitvragende partijen verstrekken voldoende informatie over (het gebruik
van) XBRL
 Eens
 Oneens
 Weet niet
15. Voorlichting.
In hoeverre bent u het eens met onderstaande stellingen?
Subvraag: De beroepsorganisaties hebben een belangrijke rol bij het verstrekken van informatie
over (het gebruik van) XBRL
 Eens
 Oneens
 Weet niet
15. Voorlichting.
In hoeverre bent u het eens met onderstaande stellingen?
Subvraag: De beroepsorganisaties verstrekken voldoende informatie over (het gebruik van) XBRL
 Eens
 Oneens
 Weet niet
15. Voorlichting.
In hoeverre bent u het eens met onderstaande stellingen?
Subvraag: De banken hebben een belangrijke rol bij het verstrekken van informatie over (het
gebruik van) XBRL
 Eens
 Oneens
 Weet niet
15. Voorlichting.
Leon Lekkerkerker
110
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
In hoeverre bent u het eens met onderstaande stellingen?
Subvraag: De banken verstrekken voldoende informatie over (het gebruik van ) XBRL
 Eens
 Oneens
 Weet niet
16. De beroepsorganisatie(s) verstrekt / verstrekken voldoende informatie over (het gebruik van)
XBRL.
(meerdere antwoorden mogelijk)
(alleen als 3 = NIVRA)
Subvraag: NIVRA
 Ja
 Nee
 Niet van toepassing / weet niet
16. De beroepsorganisatie(s) verstrekt / verstrekken voldoende informatie over (het gebruik van)
XBRL.
(meerdere antwoorden mogelijk)
(alleen als 3 = NOvAA)
Subvraag: NOvAA
 Ja
 Nee
 Niet van toepassing / weet niet
16. De beroepsorganisatie(s) verstrekt / verstrekken voldoende informatie over (het gebruik van)
XBRL.
(meerdere antwoorden mogelijk)
(alleen als 3 = NOB)
Subvraag: NOB
 Ja
 Nee
 Niet van toepassing / weet niet
16. De beroepsorganisatie(s) verstrekt / verstrekken voldoende informatie over (het gebruik van)
XBRL.
(meerdere antwoorden mogelijk)
(alleen als 3 = CB)
Subvraag: CB
 Ja
 Nee
 Niet van toepassing / weet niet
Leon Lekkerkerker
111
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
16. De beroepsorganisatie(s) verstrekt / verstrekken voldoende informatie over (het gebruik van)
XBRL.
(meerdere antwoorden mogelijk)
(alleen als 3 = FB)
Subvraag: FB
 Ja
 Nee
 Niet van toepassing / weet niet
17. Over welke onderwerpen mist u informatie?
(meerdere antwoorden mogelijk)
Over XBRL in het algemeen
 Toepassingsmogelijkheden van XBRL
 Voor- en nadelen van XBRL
 Impact op de systemen en processen
 Beschikbaarheid van softwarepakketten die met XBRL kunnen omgaan en ontwikkelingen op
dit gebied
 Mogelijkheden van aanlevering, inclusief de OTP (OverheidsTransactiePoort)
 Aanlevering aan en de situatie bij de uitvragende partijen van de overheid (Belastingdienst,
KvK, CBS)
 Aanlevering aan en de situatie bij de banken
 Praktijkvoorbeelden over (het gebruik van) XBRL
 Andere onderwerpen (graag toelichten)
18. Is op dit moment in uw organisatie voldoen kennis over XBRL in huis?
 Ja
 Nee
19. Op welke wijze zal de kennis van XBRL binnen uw organisatie worden vergroot?
(meerdere antwoorden mogelijk)
 Volgen van cursussen, etc.
 Kennis nemen van websites
 Inhuren van deskundigen
 Anders (graag toelichten)
20. Als wij u mogen benaderen voor eventuele aanvullende vragen, kunt u hier uw e-mailadres
vermelden. Uw enquêteantwoorden blijven anoniem.
Leon Lekkerkerker
112
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Appendix B. Charts for the results by operationalized acceptance
factors.
This appendix contains charts of the results of the survey questions that are used to measure
acceptance. In chapter 4 are these results presented by 3 tables. Presentation by charts would have
taken too much space, however some people prefer charts because they are easier \ quicker
interpreted.
Are all internal stakeholders involved in the decisionmaking process concerning the usage of XBRL?
44%
N=699
Yes
No
56%
Implementation of XBRL means an increase in my costs at
this moment.
N=81
30%
Agree
Neutral / Do not know
5%
Leon Lekkerkerker
65%
Disagree
113
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
We expect that the use of XBRL(over longer periods) will
lead to more efficiency and because of that, lower costs.
N=81
26%
Agree
Neutral / Do not know
9%
Disagree
65%
Implementation of XBRL requires a high degree of
flexibility of our organization at this moment.
N=81
Agree
39%
Neutral / Do not know
52%
Disagree
9%
Does your organization pay atention to the developments
concerning XBRL?
46%
54%
Leon Lekkerkerker
N=699
Yes
No
114
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Does XBRL have priority above other developments?
N=699
7%
Yes
No
93%
The amount of software packages in the market that
support XBRL is still limited.
N=81
15%
Agree
10%
Neutral / Do not know
Disagree
75%
My software supplier is not well enough informed about
the possibilities of XBRL.
N=81
13%
12%
Agree
Neutral / Do not know
Disagree
75%
Leon Lekkerkerker
115
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
My software supplier is not ready for XBRL.
35%
N=81
Agree
Neutral / Do not know
Disagree
59%
6%
My software supplier is not capable of following the
tempo of changes of my organization and not capable of
delivering the needed functionality in time.
N=81
10%
15%
Agree
Neutral / Do not know
Disagree
75%
At this moment is there sufficient knowledge about XBRL
present in your organization?
N=674
20%
Yes
No
80%
Leon Lekkerkerker
116
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
XBRL solutions still collaborate insufficiently with our
current systems and processes.
33%
45%
N=81
Agree
Neutral / Do not know
Disagree
22%
The government and receiving parties (BD, CBS, KVK)
provide enough information about (the use of) XBRL.
N=81
30%
Agree
Neutral / Do not know
64%
6%
Disagree
The branch organizations provide enough information
about (the use of) XBRL.
N=81
32%
Agree
Neutral / Do not know
Disagree
59%
9%
Leon Lekkerkerker
117
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
The banks provide enough information about (the use of)
XBRL.
N=81
6%
10%
Agree
Neutral / Do not know
Disagree
84%
Implementation of XBRL is difficult because of the
complexity of the technique.
N=81
25%
Agree
Neutral / Do not know
54%
Disagree
21%
It is not yet easy enough to make XBRL-messages
(instances) readable for humans.
N=81
19%
42%
Agree
Neutral / Do not know
Disagree
39%
Leon Lekkerkerker
118
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
The advantages of XBRL are mainly for the receivers (BD,
CBS, KVK) and only limited for my organization.
N=81
20%
2%
Agree
Neutral / Do not know
Disagree
78%
At this moment, we are able to estimate the advantages
and disadvantages of XBRL on longer term.
N=81
23%
Agree
Neutral / Do not know
10%
67%
Disagree
The XBRL-Technology and the OTP are suitable to perform
fast and easy tax announcement reporting, sending
information to the CBS and depositing information at the
KVK.
N=81
16%
Agree
Neutral / Do not know
22%
62%
Leon Lekkerkerker
Disagree
119
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Our customers want us to use XBRL.
31%
41%
N=81
Agree
Neutral / Do not know
Disagree
28%
It will still take a number of years before XBRL could
actually mean something for our organization.
31%
N=81
Agree
Neutral / Do not know
53%
Disagree
16%
My organization is of the opinion that it has to remain
possible to hand in financial information without the
usage of XBRL.
N=81
21%
Agree
6%
Neutral / Do not know
Disagree
73%
Leon Lekkerkerker
120
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
March 3th 2011
Appendix C. Correlations
In this appendix all outcomes of the Spearmans Rho correlation tests are found.
Leon Lekkerkerker
121
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
Leon Lekkerkerker
March 3th 2011
122
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
Leon Lekkerkerker
March 3th 2011
123
[ADOPTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF XBRL BY SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED
ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS.]
Leon Lekkerkerker
March 3th 2011
124