E-Government Adoption in the U.K.: XBRL Project

International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 9(2), 101-119, April-June 2013 101

ABSTRACTElectronic government is one of the strategic innovations which have become a powerful agent of change for developing better government information and services and supporting the modernization of government’s operations. This paper investigates a remarkable e-government initiative represented by the adoption process of the Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) at Companies House (CH) in the United Kingdom. Based on the application of Rogers’ framework, the research identifies CH’s motivation, vision and process to use XBRL to achieve efficiency and produce better quality data to enhance and streamline the electronic filing process. The novelty of this research is based on the usage of a well-established innovation adoption framework to examine XBRL adoption as a process –rather than a product- innovation that remains to be an under-researched area. This research provides valuable implications and conclusions that can help de-cision makers and IT experts in government agencies to devise meaningful strategic plans to adopt future e-government initiatives and develop existing ones.

E-Government Adoption in the U.K.:XBRL Project

Rania Mousa, Schroeder Family School of Business Administration, University of Evansville, Evansville, IN, USA

Keywords: Adoption, Companies House, E-Government, Electronic Government, Extensible Business Reporting Language, Innovation, United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION

Electronicgovernmentinitiativesareconsid-ered powerful mechanisms to improve theperformance of the administrative and dataprocessing tasks of government agencies(Kraemer & King, 2003). Governments areincreasinglyawareofthepotentialoftheinternettoimprovetheirperformanceandfacilitatethedeliveryofregulatoryonlineinformationandservices.Electronicgovernmenthasemergedas a process which utilized internet report-

ingfacilitiestoprovidepotentialbenefitsforgovernmentagencies,includingcostsavings,improved communication and coordinationamonggovernmentauthoritiesandincreasedgovernment accountability (Heeks, 2006).Heeksalsobelievesthattheadoptionofelec-tronicgovernment initiatives isnot a simpleprocessandcannotbeundertakenoverashorttimeperiod.

The e-government adoption processgoverns thedeliveryofonlineorweb-basedregulatoryservices,wheredifferentcomponents

DOI:10.4018/jegr.2013040106

Copyright©2013,IGIGlobal.CopyingordistributinginprintorelectronicformswithoutwrittenpermissionofIGIGlobalisprohibited.

102 International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 9(2), 101-119, April-June 2013

including technical infrastructure, organiza-tional resources, business partnerships andothergovernmententitiesinteractandinfluencesuchaprocess.Inaddition,adoptingelectronicgovernmentinitiativesrequiresaclearvisionoftheobjectiveoftheseinitiatives,effectiveplanningandmanagement.Electronicgovern-mentshouldbethereforeviewedasaprocessthatleadstoanendratherthedesiredenditself.Thispaperpresentsanin-depthcasestudythatexaminesandanalyzestheadoptionprocessofanelectronicgovernmentinitiativeatCompa-niesHouse(CH)intheUnitedKingdom.

Thee-governmentadoptionisrepresentedbytheadoptionprocessofExtensibleBusinessReportingLanguage(XBRL)atCH.Thisstudyisoneoffewresearchstudiesintheelectronicgovernment literature that employs a well-established IT innovation adoption processframeworktoinvestigatealarge-scaleU.K.’se-government initiative, as represented by“XBRL Project.” This research contributesto theXBRLande-government literaturebyproviding significant insights into severalaspectsofXBRLasanemergingtechnologythatisnowconsideredthebackboneofCH’selectronicfilingsystem.Anothercontributionof this research is that it could furtherassistpolicy makers and information technologyspecialistsandimplementerswithadoptionofe-governmentinitiativesingeneralandXBRLinseveralnationalcontexts.

Theremainderofthepaperisorganizedas follows: the researchmotivation and gapispresented,followedbyadiscussionofthetheoreticalfoundationwithemphasisonRog-ers’ adoption process (1983 and 1995). Theresearchapproachandmethodsareaddressed.ThecasestudyofXBRLadoptionprocessatCHispresented,followedbyadiscussionandanalysisofeachstageofthisprocessbasedontheempiricalevidence.Researchfindingsarepresentedanddiscussed.Thelasttwosectionsaddresstheresearchimplications,recommenda-tionsandfutureresearchvenues.

RESEARCH MOTIVATION AND GAP

Substantial research studies have been con-ductedonthesuccessfactorsofe-governmentinitiativesorprojects.Suchstudies focusonassessingtheeffectivenessofsuchinitiativesinenablinggovernmentagenciestodetermineiftheyarecapableofachievingtheobjectivesandderivingthebenefitsofe-governmentinitiatives(Gupta&Jana,2003;Mousa&Chen,2012;WangLiao,2007).Someotherstudiesassessthe“success”indicatorsofonlinefilingthroughinvestigatingthebenefitsrealizedfromusingelectronictaxationsystems(Floropoulosetal.,2010;Hungetal.,2005;Schauppetal.,2010).Somestudiesanalyzethecontentofgovernmentagencies’websitesand listdifferent typesofonline services. They also present cases forbenchmarking(Cohen&Emicke,2001;West,2003).Althoughthesestudiesareusefulinprac-ticalterms,theyaremainlydescriptiveinnatureandtheyfocusonoutputandoutcome-relatede-government studies (Morcol, 2006). Theyexaminetheoutputofe-governmentefforts,theartifactssuchasregulatorywebsitesandonlineservices(Yildiz,2007,p.647).Themainfocusof these studies is todetermine“successful”casestofollow.Suchexaminationisdeductiveand follows a non-organizational approachto investigate the adoption of e-governmentinitiatives,anditdoesnotthoroughlyanalyzetheadoptionprocessitself,asitfocusesontheoutcome.Researchingtheprocesswidensthelimited “e-government’s outcome” researchscopewhichratherfocusesonthecontentofregulatorywebsitesanduseofcertaintechnolo-giestointeractwiththegovernment.Hwangetal.(1999)arguethatiftheresearchfocusesonthetechnologyitself,itwillnotbepossibletoappreciateandunderstandtheevolvingnatureofthee-governmentconcept,regardlessofthetechnology employed to deliver governmentonlineservices.Heeks(2001)supportsHwangetal.(1999)byemphasizingthatresearchshouldratherfocusonenablinggovernmentprocesstobemoreefficienttoprovideanopportunityto



reduceregulatoryburdenwhichisnotpossiblewiththeutilizationoftheoldtechnologicaltools.

InadditionandinthespecificcontextofXBRLadoptionresearch,DebrecenyandGray(2001) recognize thatXBRLprovidesa richresearchopportunitytoinvestigatetheglobaladoption phenomenon of XBRL and how ithasbeenadopted.DoolinandTroshani(2007)examinedtheorganizationaladoptionofXBRLbyidentifyingtheinfluentialfactorsthataffectcompanies’decisiontoadoptXBRL.Bonsonetal.(2009)notedthatcompanyimagecouldhaveanimpactonXBRLadoption.Pinsker(2008),using the researchmodel of Pinsker (2007),assessedtheoutcomeofperceivedusefulnessandattitude,fromtheTechnologyAcceptanceModel(Davis,1989)andabsorptivecapacitytoimpacttheintentiontouseXBRL.Hender-son et al. (2012) examined the determinantsof inter-organizational and internal in-houseadoptionofXBRLbasedontheapplicationofTechnological-Organizational-Environmentalframework.

Overall,while prior research has inves-tigatedseveralaspectsofXBRLadoption, itdidnotexaminehowXBRLwasadopted inthefirstplaceassuggestedbyDebrecenyandGray(2001).Thecarefulexaminationof theprocessprovidesbetter understandingof theregulatoryadopter’sperception,rationaleandvision as it endeavors to successfully adoptXBRL.Anin-depthresearchdepictingXBRLadoptionprocessasanexemplarye-governmentinitiative fulfills this purpose.As such, thisresearchfills thisgapin theXBRLadoptionliterature by investigating XBRL adoptionprocessataleadingU.K.governmentagency,CompaniesHouse.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

Burton andWhite (2007), Ettlie (2006) andDamanpour et al. (2009) andTornatzky andFleischer(1990),indicatethattechnologicalin-novationscanbedividedintotwotypes:productandprocess.Producttechnologicalinnovationsbythemselvesareterminalfortheiradoptersor

users.Theyareanendinthemselves.However,process technological innovations are ratherthoseadoptedasinstrumentaltosomeotherend,suchasanimprovedprocessorserviceopera-tionforproducinganorganizationalproductorrenderingaclientservice(Damanpouretal.,2009).Most often, process technological in-novationsareintroducedtosupportanexistingproducttechnologicalinnovation,suchastheintroductionofacomputertechnologytosup-portanorganization’smaininternalprocessingsystem(Tornatzky&Fleischer,1990).

In the context of adopting informationtechnologies, process –rather than prod-uct- technological innovations require morecomplex adoption-focused models (Thong,1999;Tornatzky&Fleischer, 1990).This isduetothefactthatprocessinnovationstendtoincludedifferent individualsandstakeholdergroups, requiring “much more difficult sys-tem change” (Tornatzky & Fleischer, 1990,pp.21).Inthisregard,theadoptionofprocessinnovations requires theparticipationofdif-ferentplayersinanorganizationalcontext.Inthecontextofe-government,theadoptionofelectronicgovernmentinitiativesrequiresthedynamicinteractionoforganizationmembers,technology,stakeholdersandmobilizationoforganizational resourcesduring thatprocess.Inaddition,electronicgovernmentinitiativesstrengthenthecapabilitiesofthegovernmentagency’s existing systems and redefine thegovernment’srelationshipwithitsstakeholders(Andersen, 2001;Brown,2001;CabinetOf-fice,2000).Sinceprocessinnovationsrequirepotentialadopterstointeractwiththeirenvi-ronmentinordertocreateormodifytheirownservices,electronicgovernmentinitiativehasthecharacteristicsofprocessinnovation,andhencetheinnovationadoptionliteraturecanbeappliedinthee-governmentadoptioncontext.

Oneofthewell-establishedtheoriesofITadoptionisRogers’(1983)innovationadoptionprocess.Rogers’innovationprocesshasbeenwidelyexaminedbymanyresearchersintheareaofITadoptioninthepublicadministrationliterature (Brudney & Selden, 1995; Bugler&Bretschneider, 1993;Moon, 2002;Norris



&Kraemer,1996;Perry&Danziger,1985).In addition, Tornatzky and Fleischer (1990)indicate that Rogers’ innovation adoptionprocess(1983)is“analyticallyappropriate”toinvestigatetheadoptionofprocessinnovations,whichcharacterizetheadoptionofelectronicgovernmentinitiatives.

Rogers (1983) describes the innovationadoptionprocessasthe“processthroughwhichanorganizationpassesfromfirstknowledgeofaninnovation,toadecisiontoadoptorreject,toimplementationofthenewidea”(Rogers,1983,pp.21).Figure1illustratesthisdefinition.

Rogers(1983)recognizestheadoptionofaninnovationasaniterativeprocessofnotonlyacceptingtheideaofaninnovationbutalsotophysicallyputtingitintousebyitsadopter.Theinnovationadoptionprocessinvolvesmakingthetechnologyavailabletousers,raisingtheirawarenessaboutthe“change”thatthetechnolo-gywillbringtotheorganization’spractices,andengagingorganization’smemberstoparticipateintheprocessofadoptingthistechnology.Theknowledgestagetakesplacewhentheinforma-tionandawarenessofaninnovationexistinanorganization.Thepersuasionstageoccurswhentheadoptingorganizationdevelopsapositiveornegativeattitudetowardsthenewlyadoptedinnovation(Rogers,2003,p.176).Thedecisionmakingstagetakesplacewhentheorganizationreachesadecisionwhethertoadoptorrejecttheinnovation.Theimplementationstageinvolvesputting the innovation into practice, duringwhich the innovationwillbeassessed toseeifitmeetstheadopter’sexpectations(Rogers,1983,1995).Lastly,theconfirmationstagefinal-izestheorganization’sdecisionregardingtheinnovationadoption.Anoutcomeofthisstage

couldleadtothecontinuationoftheadoption,whichcommitstheadoptertofurtherusetheinnovation.Anotheroutcomeistoreversetheinitialchoiceoftheinnovationiftheadopterisnotsatisfiedwithitsperformance,whichwillresultinadelayedrejection(Rogers,2003).

RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODS

Thisresearchprovidesanin-depthcasestudythatinvolveslongitudinalexaminationofCH’selectronic filing history (Mousa, 2010).Yin(2003)indicatescasestudiesareconcernedwiththe“rigorousandfairpresentationofempiricaldata”(p.2).Also,accordingtoYin(1994)andBenbasatetal(1987),thecasestudymethodcanbeusedforexploringanemerging tech-nology,makingthemainresearchfocusisontheorganizationalsettinginsteadoftechnicalissues(Paré,2004).

Foursemi-structuredrecordedinterviewswereconductedinCompaniesHouse’shead-quarterinCardiff,England,duringtheperiodofMay-November2008.Recordedinterviewscomprise the core part of the “oral history”of CH’s electronic filing reporting processwithparticular emphasison theparticipants’experienceinimplementing“XBRLProject.”Literatureindicatesoralhistorianscanseek“apurposeful”ratherthanarandomselectionofresearchparticipants (Facio,1993).Thishasbeensupportedinthisresearchasthepartici-pantswereselectedbasedontheirjobaffilia-tionandroleinCH’sITservicesdivisionandparticularly,XBRLadoption.Theoralhistoryisadynamicandcreativeresearchtechniquewhichinvolvespreservingthe“knowledgeof

Figure 1. Rogers’ innovation adoption process



historicaleventsasrecountedbyparticipants”(Baum,1977,p.5).Anoralhistoryinterviewgenerallyconsistsofawell-plannedinterviewwhichallows the interviewer toquestion theinterviewee on their views and elicit theirpersonalcommentaries,whichareofhistoricalsignificance to the research issues (Ritchie,2003).ExploringCH’sXBRLadoptionpro-cess sheds light on the agency’s establishedexperience with electronic data processingpractices.Oralhistoryreducestheconstraintsimposedbythewrittendocumentsandreports,asdocuments–on theirown-are“silentandunable to respond to comments, questionsandobservations”(Hammond&Sikka,1996,pp.86).However,theusageofdocumentationanalysiswasacrucialpartofconductingthecasestudyinthisresearch.

Data collected from the interviews wasvalidated through the use of documentationanalysis(Yin,2003).Thisresearcherbuiltoverthecourseofthreeyearsmultipledatabasesofdocumentationwhichhelpedinvalidatingandaugmentingtheevidencefromtheinterviews.Documentationincludedgovernmentreports,consultation documents, organizational pre-sentations,CH’sofficialmagazine,Registrar,andarchivedreports issuedbymajorBritishprofessional bodies. These databases werestructured by following a particular line ofthinking,soevidenceassociatedwitheachin-quiryispresentedinthesameplace.AppendixBshowspartofCH’sarchiveddocumentation(Registrar Magazine).

CASE DESCRIPTION

Companies House Background

CompaniesHouse has become an executiveagencyoftheDepartmentforBusiness,Innova-tionandSkills(BIS)onOctober3rd,19981.Allregisteredlimitedcompanies,includingsubsid-iary,smallandinactivecompaniesarerequiredtofiletheirannualstatutoryaccountswithCH(AppendixCprovidesanindextoCH’sonlineformsunderCompanyActs1985and2006).CHisalsoresponsibleforretainingandmakingthe

corporateinformationavailableforpublicuse.CHprovidesfreeofchargebasicindexinforma-tionofcompanynamesandaddressesthroughitsWebCHeckonlinesearchfacility.CHalsooffersasubscription-basedpremiersearchtool(CompaniesHouseDirect)toprovideover260millionimagesofcompanydocumentsaswellasothertypesoffilings.2Inaddition,userscandownloadandpayforavarietyofdocumentssuch as company reports, document imagesandcertifieddocuments.Bulkdataandimageproductsaresoldtobusinessdataaggregatorsandcreditagenciesonmagneticdataanddocu-mentimagetapes.3

U.K. E-Government Initiative: Companies House Context

In1999,theCabinetOffice’sITflagship,repre-sentedbythee-EnvoyOffice,wasestablishedtodeveloptheprocessofelectronicgovernmentbyenablingthedeliveryofonlineservicesatgovernmentagenciesby2005(CabinetOffice,2000) as announcedby the formerMinister,TonyBlair.Thee-EnvoyOfficewaschargedwith the responsibility of coordinating theU.K.’se-governmentagendaacrossU.K.centralandlocalgovernmentauthorities.OneofthesegovernmentauthoritieswasCompaniesHouse.InFebruary2001,anXML-based“technicalsolution,” known as “XBRL” or ExtensibleBusinessReportingLanguagewasintroducedtopotentialregulatoryadoptersduringanXBRLInternational4conferenceheldinLondon.Bythe end of 2001, members of some U.K.’sgovernmentagencies-includingCH-andthee-EnvoyOfficemet to discuss the technicalcapabilities of XBRL at their organizations.In 2004, CH’s technical experts worked ondevelopingCH’swebfilingfacilitytoenabletheelectronicfilingoftheannualaudit-exemptaccountsusingXBRL.

XBRL: Main Concepts

XBRL is an extension of XML, ExtensibleMark-upLanguage.XMLwasmandated bytheU.K.governmenttobeusedfordeliveringallgovernmentonlineservices(CabinetOffice,



2000).TheselectionofXMLwasdrivenbymarketsupportandopenness,asit[XML]islikelyto“reducethecostandriskofgovern-mentinformationsystems…andareavailableto the public” (Guijarro, 2005, pp.166).Thee-EnvoyOfficewasparticularlyinterestedinXMLasatechnologythatwouldspecifythedataelementsinanydocumentwithcleartagsthat describe both their use and relationshipwith other elements in the document. Thiswouldprovidebetterdataintegration,systeminterconnectivity,andeasyaccesstoinforma-tion (U.K.OnlineReport, 2001).XBRLhasbeen technically developed to possess thesametaggingfeatureofXMLbyusingXMLSchematodescribe thestructureofbusinessand financial reports.XBRL also introducesadditionalbusiness“semantics”ormeaningswhichwerenotprovidedbyXMLalone(Hoff-man&Strand,2001).Thesesemanticscanlinkeachdataelementswithmultipleresources(suchaslabels,definitionsandcalculations)andcanbecommunicatedtoandusedbyotherusersenablingtheexchangeofthesesemanticsbe-tweenhumansorcomputersystems(Debreceny&Gray,2001).XBRLallowsuserstopreparefinancialandbusinessdatainastandardizedandmachine-readableformat.5

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF XBRL ADOPTION PROCESS: CH CONTEXT

Knowledge Stage

Prior to1996,CHreliedonan IT-supportedpaper filing method for receiving companydocuments.Presentersfiledpaperdocuments,whichweresortedinthePostRoomaccordingtothedocumenttypesandassignedauniquebarcode.Companies’accountswererecordedbyanelectronic indexingsystem. Itwas thebarcodethatenabledtheprocessingdepartmenttotrackeverydocumentreceivedbyCH(CH1).Oncethedocumentwasassignedabarcode,itwasthenmanuallyexaminedtoensurethattherelevantsectionsoftheaccountsformhadbeencompleted.Formswerethenscannedusinganimagingsystemthatscanned2500documents/

hour(C3).Theinformationthatidentifiedapar-ticulardocumentwithaspecificcompanywasupdatedelectronicallyonCH’smaindatabase,whereitwasavailableforpublicaccess.ThisreportingprocesswassupportedbyCH’smain-framecomputersystemthatlinkedthescannedimagesofthelistedcompaniesontheRegistrarandenabledcustomerstorequestdocumenta-tion for specific companies.The submissionprocesstook5-6daystoprocessfromthedatethefilingwasreceivedfromthepresenter.ThemanualdocumenthandlingprocesswastimeconsumingandunderminedtheefficiencyofCH’sinternalreportingsystems(CH1;CH2).Thisresultedinhighrejectionratesthatwerecausedbyusers’calculationerrorsinthepaperfiledaccounts.

InMay2004,theBISlaunchedtheBusi-nessLinkwebsite,dedicatedtofacilitate theelectronicfilingprocessbysmallbusinesses.Several central government departments co-fundedandsupportedtheofferedonlineservicesincludingCompaniesHouse.WiththesupportoftheBIS,CHexploredthepossibilitytosimplifythefilingprocessforsmallcompanies’audit-exemptaccounts,sotheinformationcouldbesubmittedandaccessedthroughtheBusinessLink.DuringthecourseofimplementingtheBusiness Link, CH’s e-Accounts ProgramrepresentedbyCH1andCH2becameawareofHerMajestyRevenueandCustoms(HMRC)’skeen interest in developing its accounts andcomputationsupplementarydocumentswhicharefiledwiththecorporatetaxreturns(CT600).Inaddition,CH1andCH2attendedHMRC’sworkshopwhereHMRC’splanofimplement-ingXBRLfortheaccountsandcomputations.CHbecameawareofthepotentialbenefitsthatXBRLcoulddeliver to itsexistingreportingsystem.CHwasdrivenbytheneedtocaptureandmanipulate thedata in the audit-exemptaccounts,insteadofcapturingstaticimagesofthedata(C3;CH1;CH2).

Persuasion Stage

Followingtheworkshop,CH’sXBRLprojectteammembersstartedtoexaminetheapplicabil-ityofXBRLtoCH’saudit-exemptaccounts.CH



startedtodevelopafavorableopiniontowardsXBRLasanapplicabletechnologythatcouldbeusedinthefilingoftheaudit-exemptaccounts.However,thispositiveattitudewasovershad-owedbythesophisticationofXBRLtaxonomystructureitself.Theaudit-exemptaccountscon-tained450dataelementswhichhadtobetaggedinXBRLtaxonomy,whichwasnotastrenuoustechnicalproblemuntilCHrecognizedthatitdidnothavethetechnicalcapabilitytobuildanappropriateXBRLtaxonomystructurefortheaudit-exemptaccounts.Thecomplexityofbuilding such structure for XBRL reportingposedachallengetoCH’sXBRLprojectteammembers.CH faceddifficulties in recruitingand retainingXML-skilled personnel due tothe shortage in IT professionals who wereprovidedwithbetteremploymentpackagesbyprivatesectororganizations.ThelackofCH’sITexpertiseforcedittooutsourcethetaskofbuildingXBRLtaxonomytoitsmainITservicesprovider,AdobeCompany.

To overcome its indecision towardswhetherXBRLtaxonomystructurecouldbewelldevelopedtosupportthefilingoftheaudit-exemptaccounts,CHheldmeetingswithAdobetoexaminetheirstrategytowardsbuildingthetaxonomy(CH1;CH2).Duringthosemeetings,theideaofusingan“AdobeIntelligentForm”orAIFwasintroducedtoXBRLprojectteammembers.CHrealizedthatXBRLdatacouldenable the pre-populationof previous year’sdatathroughtheusageofAIF,whichreducesthetimespentbypresentersinfilingtheircurrentyear’saccounts(C1).AIFalsoprovidesbetter‘screen clarity’ and contains built-in checksandhelp-textforpresenterswhousedtohavedifficultyfollowingtheonlineinstructionsdur-ingtheregistrationprocess,resultinginsomeoftheinputdatabeinglostoromittedbythesystem(C21).OnceAIFisdownloadedfromCH’swebsite,presenterscanenterthedataintothe“boxes”providedintheAIF.Agentsfilingonbehalfof theirclientscancomplete themofflineoveraperiodoftime,savingthemasdraftsthatcanbeemailedtotheirclientsbeforesubmittingthefinalversiontoCH(C21,p.17).XBRLdatacanbeautomaticallycheckedand

validated before submission,which helps toreducecalculationerrors and rejection rates.CompletedAIFs could be submitted to CHusing the company’s web filing authentica-tioncode,which isequivalent toacompanyofficer’s signature.After validating the dataand accepting the accounts, an XBRL stylesheet is created andmade available toCH’spresenters.Then,inordertomaketheaccountspubliclyavailableandreadablebypresentersandinternetusers,CHhastorendertheimageofthedata.ThisisdonebyconvertingXBRLdatatoTIFF-baseddocuments,whichwillbestoredinCH’simagingsystemandcorporatedatabase(CH1;CH3).ThemainfeatureoftheTIFFisthatitpreservestheimageofthestoreddocumentwithoutthelossoftheoriginaldata,anddatacouldbesubjecttomultipleeditingwithoutlosingitsquality.Forrejectedaccounts,presentersareaskedtore-submittheiraccountsandmakealltherequiredcorrections.

CHwaseventuallyconvincedthatXBRL-basedAIFcouldprovideastrongplatformforfiling audit-exempt accounts.This favorableattitudetowardsXBRLapplicabilitycontrib-utedtoCH’sdecisiontopresentitscasetoitsmain oversight body, the BIS, to seek theirapproval,beforeitfinallymakesthedecisiontoadoptXBRL.

Decision Making Stage

AccordingtoRogers(1983),someorganiza-tionsneedtoseeksupportfromtopgovernmentauthorities.Thistakesplaceafterassessingtheorganizationalcapabilitiestoadoptatechnol-ogy,gatheringalltheinformationanddevelop-ingapositiveattitudetowardsthetechnology.In that respect, CH acquired approval andadvisorysupportfromtheBIS.TheBIS’sadvi-soryassistancewasanimportantcatalystinthedecisionmakingprocess(CH1).AccountancyexpertiseandassistancewiththeselectionofaproperdatastructureandformatofXBRL-enabledaudit-exemptaccountswereprovidedbytheBIS.TheyalsocheckedthepresentationandformatofXBRL-basedAdobeIntelligentFormsandaccompanyingnotesprovidedby



presenterstodeterminetheforms’compliancewiththeCompaniesAct2006.

In 2006, amajor turning point in CH’sXBRL adoption process was affected by agovernmentdecision.LordStephenCarter–U.K.’sformerMinisterforCommunications,Technology and Broadcasting – announcedin a government report that effective April2011,U.K.’staxauthority,HMRevenueandCustoms(HMRC)andCompaniesHouse,willberequiredtouseXBRLforthejointfilingofXBRL-basedfullstatutoryaccountstoHMRCand their abbreviated accounts to CH (LordCarterReport,2006).Consequently,CHhadto review the data structure of the accountsoflargecompanies.CHcollaboratedwiththeBISandtheCabinetOfficetodiscussthelegalimplicationsofenablingthefilingofcompanies’accountsinXBRLbeforetheimplementationofthejointfilingfacility.ThismadeCHre-iteratethe knowledge stage to re-gather additionalinformation about tagging large companies’accounts inXBRL.Thus,CHwas faced theproblemofthecomplexityofthedatastructureofthesophisticatedand–ratherdetailed-auditedaccountsforlargecompanies.Theseaccountsinvolve additional accounting requirements(e.g.listedcompaniesusingIFRS6).AsaresultCHhadtocollaboratewithHMRC’sITspecial-ists,softwarevendorsandaccountingfirmstodiscusstechnicalandfinancialreportingissuesrelevanttothejointfilingfacility.

In addition,CHmanaged to secure suf-ficientfinancialsupportfromtopgovernmentauthoritiestofacilitatetheadoptionofXBRL.Inaddition to the financial support from thegovernment,CHsoughtlegalassistancefromtheBIStolegalizethecomplexsetofthefullstatutoryaccountssubmittedbycorporateuserstoCH.CHneededtorenderXBRLdatasothepubliclydisclosedaccounts’informationwillexactlymatch the information submitted bysmallcompaniesundertheCompaniesAct2006.TheBIShelpedCHbymappingtheminimumreportingrequirements–basedontheAct-thatshouldbefollowedbypresenters.

Implementation Stage

InJune2005,CHannouncedthatmanysoft-warepackageswereapprovedandenabledtofacilitateXBRLfilings,sosmallbusinessesdidnotneedtodeveloptheirownpackages(C21).ThetestingofthesoftwarefilingwasscheduledtostartinNovember2005.Pilotseminarswereconducted fromMarch-May2006 in severalcitiestoshowcaseXBRLfilingusingCH’swebfilingfacility(C24).Thesesessionswerepubli-cizedinCH’sofficialmagazine,theRegistrar,wherelocationsandtimeswerescheduledtotakeplaceinseveralmajorBritishcities.CH’sXBRL project manager indicated that thesesessionsassistedinidentifyingpotentialprob-lemswiththeusageofAdobeforms,asraisedbyrepresentativesofsmallbusinesses(CH1).InadditionandaspartofXBRLshowcasingcampaign, CH announced in February 2006thatithadreceiveditsfirstXBRL-basedfilingfrom ForbesComputer Systems.7AccordingtoCH’s formerChiefExecutive,Ms.ClaireClancy,accountsfiledbyForbes“represented a major landmark”inthedeliveryofelectronicservicesforcustomers.8Afterreceivingposi-tive feedbackduring thecampaigns,CHranseveraltestingsessionsinpreparationforthelaunchofthewebfiling,whichtookplaceinJuly2006(C1).

Confirmation Stage

AfterfinalizingtheimplementationofXBRL-basedwebfiling,CHandHMRCstartedwork-ingonimplementingthejointfilingfacilitywiththeassistancefromtheBISandtheCabinetOf-fice.Thejointfilingfacilityaimedatstreamlingthefilingoflargecompanies’auditedaccountsandtaxreturnsthroughusingonesingleportal,theBusinessLink.However,CHencounteredmanychallengingprivacyissues.Forexample,businessesvoicedtheirconcernstowardssomeprivacyissuesassociatedwithreleasingtheirfullaccounts’datatoHMRCandtheirabbrevi-atedaccountstoCH.TherequirementtofileadditionaldetaileddatatoHMRCconcernedmanybusinessesastheyfearedthatCHcould



haveanaccesstocorporatedatathatshouldnotbedisclosedtothepublic,whichcouldbesoldtoCH’s subscribed customers.To safeguardthesecurityofXBRLdatareportedusingthejointfilingfacility,CHindicatedthatitwouldcooperatewithHMRCandtheBIStoreinforceitsexistingsecuritymeasures.

Theimplementationofthejointfilingfacil-itywasnoteasilyfacilitatedasCHconfrontedsignificantpublicresistance.Manylargecompa-niesquestionedXBRLbenefitstotheirbusinessreportingsystems.ThisisduetothefactthatthosecompanieshadtofiletwicewithHMRCandCH,whileitwasthegovernment’sinitialgoaltoreducecompliancecostsforbusinesses(BIS,2009),eliminateredundanciesandinef-ficienciesingovernmentadministrativeopera-tions(Hampton,2005).TherewasagenerallackofXBRLawarenessamonglargecompanies.TheirlackofXBRLknowledgeandbenefitsreflectedtheirskepticismaboutthefeasibilityofthedouble-filingandtheirconcernsaboutthesoftwareproviders’readinessforthejointfilingfacilitybeforeApril2011.ThiscontributedtothelackofmakingXBRLbusinesscaseforitsuserswhichwasdocumentedbyseveralsurveysconductedbymajorprofessionalbodiesintheU.K.(Dunneetal.,2009;ICAEW,2009;ICAS2010). CH did not experience this problemwhen it initially implementedXBRL for thefiling of the audit-exempt accounts in 2006asitwasbasedonvoluntarybasis.However,CHofficialsbelievedthatthevoluntaryfilingapproachwasnot a feasibleoption for largecompanies and agents,which comprised themostskepticalXBRLusergroupamongCH’sfilingcompanies’population.

Inpreparationforthejointfilingfacility,CH1realizedthattheexistingXBRLstructurewasnotcapableofsupportingthedatastructureofthelargecompanies’abbreviatedaccounts.AseriesofHMTLdocumentshadtobegeneratedusingadevelopedversionofXBRL,knownasInlineXBRLor“iXBRL.”AccordingtoCH1andCH2,InlineXBRLdocumentswerecapableofabsorbinglargeamountofinformationfiledbypresenters.Forexample,thesameiXBRLdocument,aprofitandlossaccountandbalance

sheetcouldbegenerated,andthiscompletesetofstatementswasrequiredbyHMRC,whilethebalancesheeton itsownrepresented theaudit-exemptaccountsfiledwithCH.ForCH,InlineXBRLprovidedbetterdatareadabilityand processing. This caused a reiteration ofXBRLadoptionprocessasCHneededtogatheradditionaltechnicalassistanceandinformationaboutInlineXBRLtoaccommodatethefilingrequirementsofthefullaccountsinprepara-tionfor thejointfilingfacility.InlineXBRLwas finally introducedduringsummer2010.CHannouncedthatitwillcontinuetodevelopiXBRLtoextenditsusageforthefullauditedfilingsinthenearfuture.

RESEARCH FINDINGS

ThecriticalreviewofXBRLinnovationadop-tionprocessatCompaniesHousegeneratesthefollowingresearchfindings:

• Inthisstudy,ithasbeennoticedthatpriortocommencingXBRLadoptionprocessand starting to gather knowledge aboutXBRL,CHrecognizedtheneedtoadoptthis technology. XBRL was adopted toproduce “better quality data” that couldcontributetoachievingefficiencyinpro-cessingstatutorydatafiledbypresentersandeliminatinghalfofCH’scurrentpaperfilings.TaggedXBRLdatawasusedbyCHtovalidateproperdatadeliveryfromthepresenterstoCH’sprocessingsystemsinaccordancewithstatutoryrequirements.As CH stated, “providing for thewideruse/disseminationoftaggedaccountsdatawill be one of our prime developmentandbusinesschallenges,buildingontheavailabilityofincreasinglevelsoftaggedinformationfromgrowingacceptanceoftheuseofXBRLintheU.K.”9Asevidentfromthisstatement,XBRL’smainbenefitto CH was to facilitate data capturing,processing and dissemination, and thatincluded the financial benefits realizedfromsellingbulkdatatodataaggregators.



ThissupportsPinskerandLi’sfindingswhoindicate that regulators could capitalizeonXBRLbenefitsintermsofminimizingdatare-entryandimprovingaccessibilityto online government services (Pinsker&Li,2008).Accordingto theempiricalevidence, the initial step of recognizingtheneedforXBRLadoptionprecededtheknowledgestage.Recognizingthisneedisprimarilyanorganizationalprocess,whichdoesnotnecessarilyrequiretheparticipa-tionofexternalstakeholders.Therefore,theneedormotivationtoadoptatechnologyshouldbeintegratedintoRogers’adoptionprocesstoprecedetheknowledgestage.

• RelianceonIToutsourcingcouldencour-agesomegovernmentagenciestoinvestfewerresourcesintobuildingandimprov-ingtheirownITdepartments(Pavlichev,2004;Willcocksetal.,1995).Inaddition,ithamperstheagencies’abilitytoimplementfuture large-scale IT projects. This wasfoundconsistentwithCHcase,asXBRLprojectteamconsistedoffourmembers,only one of whom did receive specialXBRLtraining,whiletherestworkedonthenon-technicalsideofXBRLproject.

• CH’spartnershipwithAdobeplayedmajorpartduringthepersuasionstage.Duringthatstage,CHmovedfromsimplybeingawareofXBRL’sbenefitsandpotential,to actively considerwhetherXBRL canbecertainlyadoptedwithintheagency.AsRogersmentionthattheknowledgestageismorecognitiveorknowing-centered,thepersuasionismoreaffectiveorfeelings-centered (Rogers, 2003). For example,therewas a degree of uncertainty aboutXBRL, and whether CH is prepared tohavethetechnicalresourcestoimplementit,buttheempiricalevidencedemonstratesthatCHwaspersuadedbyAdobe,whichhadasignificanttechnicalexpertisethatled to the development of the “AdobeIntelligentForm.”

• TheinitialdecisiontoadoptXBRLwassup-portedbyCH’svisiontoachieveitslong-termobjectiveofelectronicallyenabling

100%ofitsfilings.Thisvisionwassteeredbymembers in theBIS, and financiallyandtechnicallysupportedbytheTreasuryandtheCabinetOfficerespectively.ThisindicatesthatthedecisionmadebyCHtoadoptXBRLwasbasedon an authoritybasis.CHmemberswhopossesspowerandtechnicalexpertiserepresentedbyCH’stopmanagement,XBRLprojectmanagerandtheBIS,aretheoneswholedthedecisionmakingprocess.ThispavedthewayforCHtosecureadequatefinancialandlegalsupportfromtopgovernmentauthorities.

• ThelegalassistanceacquiredfromtheBISwas crucial during the decisionmakingstagewas considered one ofCH’s legalmaneuverstoreducethecomplianceburdenonpresenters.10ThisisduetothefactthatCHwillbeabletohandleprivacyconcernsofinformationdisclosuremoreeffectivelyas companies do not have to report fullcorporateinformationthatisnotrequiredby the law. Inaddition,CHwillbe lessconcernedaboutitsabilitytoprocessthelargevolumeofdatafiledbycompaniesasCHhassufferedfromashortageofitsoperationsstaffmembersespeciallyduringpeakfilingperiods.

• The process of making XBRL businesscase forCH itself tookplaceduring theknowledgestageafterrecognizingtheneedto adopt XBRL. XBRL as noted previ-ouslywasperceivedasatechnologywhichcouldimprovethequalityofthedatafiledbypresenters.ThisreflectedCH’sinitialemphasisonrealizingthosebenefitsforthesakeofsecuringtopgovernmentfinancialandlegalsupport.However,XBRLbusi-nesscaseforitsendusers(presenters)wasnotmadeuntilCHfinallyimplementedtheXBRL-basedwebfiling.Thisimpliesthatthere is a gap betweenCH’s perceptionofXBRLusageandusers’perceptionofXBRLbenefits.WhileCHwasgatheringknowledgetoensuretheapplicabilityandfunctionality ofXBRL,more effort hadto be exerted to raise users’ awarenessofXBRLpotentialtothem.CHwaspro-



foundlydeterminedtoovercometechnicalintricaciesassociatedwithXBRLadoption,thejointfilingfacilityandInlineXBRL.Sincethee-governmentadoptionprocessisbuiltontheideaofadoptingareport-ingtechnologytooltofacilitatethefilingprocessofthedataprovidedbytheusers(CH’smainstakeholdergroup),thisneces-sitatesthe‘full’participationoftheusersin this process.Without recognizing theusers’needsandcapabilitiesandwithoutacknowledgingthebenefitsofXBRLusagetothem,thepotentialofthee-governmentadoptionprocesswillbethwartedastheoutputofthisprocessreliesontheusers’participation.

• XBRLmandateplayedadualroleinXBRLadoptionprocess.ThemandategaveCHtheregulatorypowerto“legitimize”andurge the usage of XBRL by companiesand agents. This supports Troshani andRao’sfindingswhoemphasizethatgov-ernmentsshouldmandateXBRLreportingbyenforcingitasalaw(Troshani&Rao,2007). CH believed that the regulatorypressureasrepresentedbythemandateisareassuringandsupportivefactor,mostlytoXBRLregulatoryadopterssuchasCH,asitcouldbetheonlymeanstopushre-luctantcorporateuserstowardschangingtheirunderlyingfilingsystems(Abdullahetal.,2009).Ontheotherhand,themandatewasperceivedasademotivatingfactortorealizethebenefitsofXBRLasuserswerealsoconcernedaboutXBRL’sfeasibilityandthechangesthathadtotakeplacetoen-abletheirsystemstobeXBRL-compatible.

• CHdidnotadopta‘wait-and-see’approachbyputtingtheadoptionprocessonhold,while waiting to learn from HMRC’sfuture XBRL adoption experience. ThiscontradictsanAustralianregulatoryXBRLadopter’s approachwhich opted towaituntil the software vendors could final-ize the technologydevelopment(Doolin& Troshani, 2007). Companies House,however, actively developed an interestinXBRL’sfunctionalitiesasapromising

datareportingandprocessingtoolwhichwill bolsterCH’s existing electronic re-portingprocess.WhenCHfacedtechnicalproblemsduringtheprocess,itmanagedto utilize its partnership withAdobe toovercomeanydifficultiesanddevelopthecapabilitiesofXBRLtoaccommodatethecorporatefilings.

• XBRLadoptionprocessatCHwasmainlydata-driven.Thedatawasthemainfactorbehind determining CH’s approach anddecisionofhowtoutilizeXBRL,mobilizeorganizationalresourcesandseektechni-calandnon-technicalsupportthroughouttheadoptionprocess.CHdeterminedtheapplicability of XBRL. This was doneby gathering information primarily todeterminewhetherXBRLcould“fit”andsupport the filing of the accounts. Thecompatibility ofXBRL as a technologywasrelatively less importantfactor thandeterminingXBRL’sfunctionality.ThisisduetothefactthatCHalreadyperceivedthebenefitsofadoptingXML-basedtech-nologies in its existing electronic filingsystem.Therefore,adoptinganadvancedversionofanXMLlanguagedidnotrequirere-examiningXBRL’scompatibility.ThedatacomplexityalsoinfluencedthepaceandprogressofCHtomovefromonestagetoanotherduringtheadoptionprocess.ItcausedthereiterationoftheprocesswhenCHdecidedtoimplementthejointfilingfacility knowing that it had to acquireadequate technical expertise,whichwasnotreadilyavailableatCH.ThispushedCH to secure sufficient technical andnon-technical support to assist in build-ingXBRLtaxonomyandresolvingdatarenderingissues.

• TheconfirmationstageshowsCH’sconsis-tentcommitmenttowardsXBRLadoption.Despitethesecurityissuesvoicedbythecorporateusers,CHcooperatedwithex-pertsfromtheBIStoenhancethesecuritymeasuresatCH’selectronicfilingsystems.This commitment was also matched byCH’sdeterminationtodevelopthecapabili-



tiesofitsfilingsystems,soitcanaccom-modatethesophisticateddatastructureoflargecompanies.TheconfirmationstageresultedinoneoftheoutcomesoutlinedbyRogers,whichwasexemplifiedbythecontinuationofCH’sefforttofurtheruseXBRLwithintheagency,bydevelopingInline XBRL to support the joint filingfacility.

RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS

Thefindingsofthisresearchsupporttheim-portance of overcoming technical complexi-ties,mobilizing organizational and technicalresources,makingthetechnologybusinesscasefortheadoptingagenciesandpotentialstake-holdersandseekingexternalsupportthroughbuildingstrategicpartnershipswithpublicandprivate-sector organizations. Identifying thekey players involved in adopting electronicgovernment initiatives ingeneralandXBRLadoptionprocessinparticularshouldbeahighpriorityforpolicymakers.Forexample,CHwasquicktoidentifythosekeyplayersfromthe early stages ofXBRL adoption process.Ina timelymanner,CHmanaged toacquireknowledge,designXBRLtaxonomystructure(usingAdobe’sassistance)andseekrequiredapprovals,beforeultimatelymakingthedeci-siontoimplementXBRL.ThisimpliesCH’sawareness of the time and effort that itwilltaketoadoptXBRL,anditsalertnesstowardsarapidlydevelopingtechnologythathasbeenseriouslyconsideredforadoptionbyHMRC.

Another important implication is CH’sdedicationtowardsadoptingXBRL,whichwasanimportantcatalystindrivingXBRLadoptionprocess.Despite thedifficultieswhich facedCH,includingthedesignofXBRLtaxonomystructureandthenuisanceofthesecuritycon-cerns of XBRL-based corporate filings, CHdid not back off from its decision to pursuetheadoptionofXBRL.ThisimpliesthelevelofXBRL’simportanceforCH,whichhasbeendrivennotonlybyCH’sperceptionofXBRLapplicability and functionalities, but also by

CH’sstrongbeliefinactivelysupportingthetopgovernment’svisiontoelectronicallyenabletheregulatoryfilingsystems.

AnalyzingCH’sXBRLadoptionprocessprovidesremarkableinsightstopolicymakersandITspecialistsastheycouldenvisagetheissues and challenges, facing their organiza-tion,astheydevisestrategicactionplansfordevelopingpotentiallarge-scalee-governmentinitiatives.

RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Thisresearchgeneratesseveralrecommenda-tions.This researcher suggests that potentialregulatoryXBRLadopters–asfoundinCH’scase-shouldrealizeXBRL’spotential,ensuringthatXBRLcouldbeeasilyintegratedintotheexistingadopter’slegacyelectronicreportingsystems.Realizing thepotentialofXBRL ishighlycontingentontheexistenceofamotiva-tionoraneedtoadoptthetechnologyinthefirstplace.Withoutthismotivation,theprocessofadoptingthetechnologycouldlackaclearvisionandfeasibleroadmapwhichhelpsteertheadoptionprocessintherightdirection.Theexistenceofstrongorganizationaltechnicalandnon-technicalcapabilities,includingin-housetraining- reduces the complexities surround-ingtechnologyadoptionandimplementationissues. Future regulatory XBRL adoptersshouldbeinvolvedinbuildingacriticalmassof stakeholders, including software vendors,professionalbodiesandusercommunities,toseekandexchangemeaningfulexternal sup-portandfeedbackduringtheadoptionprocess.Facedwithhigh levelsofuncertainty, futureregulatoryXBRLadopterscouldalsofollow“best practices” adopted by current XBRLadopters. This rationale suggests that in thecontextofXBRL,agovernmentagencymaystrivetoadoptXBRLtoremain“competitive”in the global regulatory electronic reportingmarketplace.



Thisresearchprovidesvenuesforresearch-erstore-examineRogers’innovationadoptionprocess in different national contexts, andprovide profound comparative examples toenhance the generalizability of the researchfocus.Afurtherrecommendationistoinvesti-gatetheimpactofdifferentstakeholders(onlineusers,softwaredevelopers,accountingfirms,professional bodies) and the roles they playin the adoption of e-government initiatives.FutureresearchcouldalsoexaminethefactorsordriversthataffectregulatoryXBRLadoptertoseekoutsourcingvs.insourcingdecisionforXBRLimplementation.

REFERENCES

Abdullah,A., Khadaroo, I.,& Shaikh, J. (2009).Institutionalization of XBRL in the USA andUK.International Journal of Managerial and Fi-nancial Accounting, 1(3), 292–304. doi:10.1504/IJMFA.2009.025057.

Andersen, D., & Dawes, S. (1991).Government information management: A primer and casebook.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.

Andersen,J.(2001).Theconceptofgenre:When,howandwhy?Knowledge Organization,28(4),203–204.

Baum,W. (1977). Transcribing and editing oral history. Altamira Press, Rowman and LittlefieldPublisher.

Benbasat,I.,Goldstein,D.,&Mead,M.(1987).Thecasestudyresearchinstudiesofinformationsystems.Management Information Systems Quarterly,11(3),369–386.doi:10.2307/248684.

BIS. (Department for Business, Innovation andSkills).(2009).Simplificationplan2009:Deliver-ingabetterbusinessenvironment.DepartmentforBusinessInnovationandSkills.

Bonson, E., Cortijo,V.,& Escobar, T. (2009).ADelphiinvestigationtoexplainvoluntaryadoptionofXBRL.The International Journal of Digital Ac-counting Research,9(December),193–205.

Brown,M. (2001).The benefits and costs of in-formation technology innovations: An empiricalassessment of a local government agency.Public Performance and Management Review, 24(4),351–366.doi:10.2307/3381224.

Brudney,J.,&Selden,S.(1995).Theadoptionofinnovationbysmallerlocalgovernments.American Review of Public Administration, 25(1), 71–80.doi:10.1177/027507409502500105.

Bugler,D.,&Bretschneider,S.(1993).Technologypushorprogrampull:Interestinnewinformationtechnologies within public organizations. In B.Bozeman(Ed.),Public management: The state of the art(pp.275–293).Jossey-Bass.

Burton,G.,&White,M.(2007).The management of technology and innovation: A strategic approach.ThomsonSouth-Western.

CabinetOffice.(2000).e-Government–astrategicframeworkforthepublicservicesintheinformationage.London,UK:PerformanceandInnovationUnit,CabinetOffice,theStationeryOffice.

Cohen,S.,&Eimicke,W.(2001).Theuseofinternetingovernmentservicedelivery.InM.Abramson,&G.Means (Eds.),e-Government 2001 (pp.9–43).Oxford,UK:RowmanandLittlefieldPublishers.

Damanpour,F.,Walker,R.,&Avellaneda,C.(2009).Combinativeeffectsofinnovationtypesandorgani-sationalperformance:Alongitudinalstudyofserviceorganizations.Journal of Management Studies,46(4),650–675.doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00814.x.

Davis,F.(1989).Perceivedusefulness,perceivedeaseofuse,anduseracceptanceofinformationtechnol-ogy.Management Information Systems Quarterly,13(3),319–340.doi:10.2307/249008.

Debreceny,R.,&Gray,G.(2001).Theproductionanduseofsemanticallyrichaccountingreportsontheinternet:XMLandXBRL.International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 2(1), 47–74.doi:10.1016/S1467-0895(00)00012-9.

Deshmukh,A.(2004).XBRL.Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13(16),196–219.

Doolin,B.,&Troshani, I. (2007).Organizationaladoption of XBRL. Electronic Markets –. Inter-national Journal (Toronto, Ont.),17(3),199–209.

Dunne,T.,Helliar,C.,Lymer,A.,&Mousa,R.(2009).XBRL: The views of stakeholders.ResearchReportNo. 111. London, UK:Association of CharteredCertifiedAccountants.

Ettlie, J. (2006). Managing innovation. New technology, new products, and new services in a global economy(2nded.).Burlington,MA:ElsevierButterworth-Heinemann.



Facio,E.(1993).Ethnographyaspersonalexperience.InJ.H.Stanfield,&R.M.Dennis(Eds.),Race and ethnicity in research methods.London,UK:SagePublications.

Floropoulos,J.,Spathis,C.,Halvatzis,D.,&Tsi-pouridou,M.(2010).MeasuringthesuccessoftheGreek taxation information system. International Journal of Information Management,30(1),47–56.doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.03.013.

Guijarro,L.(2005).LectureNotesinComputerSci-ence:Vol.35917.Policy and practice in standards selection for e-government interoperability frame-works (pp. 163–173).Berlin,Germany:Springer.doi:10.1007/11545156_16.

Gupta,M.,&Jana,D.(2003).e-Governmentevalu-ation:Aframeworkandcasestudy.Government In-formation Quarterly,20(4),365–387.doi:10.1016/j.giq.2003.08.002.

Hammond, T., & Sikka, P. (1996). Radicalizingaccounting history: The potential of oral history.Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,9(3),79–97.doi:10.1108/09513579610122018.

Hampton,P.(2005).Reducing administrative bur-dens: Effective inspections and enforcement.London,UK:HMTreasury.

Heeks,R.(2001).Understandinge-governancefordevelopment.Manchester,UK:InstituteforDevel-opmentPolicyandManagementHeeks,R.(2006).Implementing andmanaging e-government. SagePublications.

Hendersen,D.,Sheetz,S.,&Trinkle,B.(2012).Thedeterminants of inter-organizational and internalin-houseadoptionofXBRL:Astructuralequationmodel.International Journal of Accounting Infor-mation Systems, 13(2), 109–140. doi:10.1016/j.accinf.2012.02.001.

Hoffman,C.,&Strand,C.(2001).XBRL Essentials.NewYork,NY:AICPA.

Hung,S.,Chang,C.,&Yu,T.(2005).Determinantsof user acceptance of the e-government services:Thecaseofonlinetaxfilingandpaymentsystem.Government Information Quarterly,23(1),97–122.doi:10.1016/j.giq.2005.11.005.

Hwang,S.,Choi,Y.,&Myeong,S.(1999).ElectronicgovernmentinSouthKorea:Conceptualproblems.Government Information Quarterly,16(3),277–285.doi:10.1016/S0740-624X(99)80028-8.

ICAEW(InstituteofCharteredAccountantsinEng-landandWales).(2009).Compulsory online filing of company tax returns and electronic payment of corporation tax: Draft legislation.London,UK:ITFaculty,ICAEW.

ICAS(InstituteofCharteredAccountantsofScot-land). (2010).Concerns about imminent changes to company tax filing.AreportonICASmembers’surveyonthecurrentstateofreadinessofcompaniesand tax agents for implementation of mandatoryiXBRL-based corporation tax online filing on 1April2011.RetrievedJune20,2012, fromhttp://www.icas.org.uk/site/cms/download/tax/ixbrl_sur-vey_report_20100512.pdf

Kraemer,K.,&King,J.(2003).Information technol-ogy and administrative reform: Will the time after e-government be different?UniversityofCaliforniaatIrvine,CentreforResearchonInformationTech-nologyandOrganizations.

Moon,M.(2002).Theevolutionofe-governmentamong municipalities: Rhetoric or reality?Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424–433.doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00196.

Morcol,G.(2006).Handbook of decision making (Public Administration and Public Policy). BocaRaton,FL:CRCPress.doi:10.1201/9781420016918.

Mousa,R.(2010).e-Government adoption process: XBRL adoption at HM revenue and customs and companies house. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion.BirminghamBusinessSchool,UniversityofBirmingham,Birmingham,UK.

Mousa,R.,&Chen,Y.(2012). e-Government adop-tion of XBRL: An U.K. /U.S.A. comparison. InV.Weerakkody,& C. Reddick (Eds.), Public sectortransformationthroughe-government:Experiencesfrom Europe and North America (pp. 198-210).Routledge,TaylorandFrancisGroup.

Norris,D.,&Kraemer,K.(1996).MainframeandPCcomputinginAmericancities:Mythsandreali-ties.Public Administration Review,56(6),568–576.doi:10.2307/977255.

OnlineReport,U.K.(2001).Office of the e-envoy.London,UK:CabinetOffice.

Paré,G.(2004).Investigatinginformationsystemswithpositivistcasestudyresearch.Communications of the Association for Information Systems,13(14),233–264.



Pavlichev,A.(2004).Thee-governmentchallengefor public administration. InA. Pavlichev, & D.Garson(Eds.),Digital government: Principles and best practices (pp. 276–290). London, UK: IdeaGroupPublishing.

Perry, J., & Danziger, J. (1985). The adopt-ability of innovations: An empirical assessmentof computer applications in local governments.Administration & Society, 11(4), 461–292.doi:10.1177/009539978001100405.

Pinsker,R.(2007).Atheoreticalframeworkforex-aminingthecorporateadoptiondecisioninvolvingXBRLasacontinuousdisclosuretechnology.InR.Debreceny,C.Felden,&M.Piechocki(Eds.),New dimensions of business reporting and XBRL (pp.73–98).DUV.doi:10.1007/978-3-8350-9633-2_4.

Pinsker, R. (2008).An empirical examination ofcompetingtheoriestoexplaincontinuousdisclosuretechnologyintentionsusingXBRLastheexampletechnology. International Journal of Digital Ac-counting Research,8(14),81–96.

Pinsker, R., & Li, S. (2008, March). Costs andbenefits of XBRL adoption: Early evidence.Communications of the ACM, 51(3), 47–50.doi:10.1145/1325555.1325565.

Report,L.C.(2006).Review of HMRC online ser-vices report.London,UK:HMRCOnlineServices.

Ritchie,D.(2003).Doing oral history: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford UniversityPress.

Rogers,E.(1983).Diffusion of innovations(3rded.).NewYork,NY:TheFreePress.

Rogers,E.(1995).Diffusion of innovations(4thed.).NewYork,NY:TheFreePress.

Schaupp,L.,Carter,L.,&McBride,M.(2010).E-fileadoption:AstudyofU.S.taxpayers’intention.Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 636–644.doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.12.017.

Thong,J.(1999).Anintegratedmodelofinforma-tionsystemsadoptioninsmallbusiness.Journal of Management Information Systems,15(4),187–214.

Tornatzky&Fleischer.M. (1990).Theprocessesoftechnologicalinnovation.Lexington,MA:Lex-ingtonBooks.

Troshani,I.,&Rao,S.(2007).Driversandinhibi-tors toXBRLadoption:Aqualitativeapproachtobuilda theoryinunder-researchedareas.Interna-tional Journal of E-Business Research,3(4),98–111.doi:10.4018/jebr.2007100106.

Wang,Y.,&Liao,Y.(2007).TheconceptualizationandmeasurementofM-commerceusersatisfaction.Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 381–398.doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.017.

West,D. (2003).Urban e-government, 2003.Re-trievedJune20,2012,fromhttp://www.insidepoli-tics.org/egovt03city.html

Willcocks,L.,Lacity,M.,&Fitzgerlad,G.(1995).InformationtechnologyoutsourcinginEuropeandthe USA:Assessment issues. International Jour-nal of Information Management,15(5), 333–351.doi:10.1016/0268-4012(95)00035-6.

XBRL Progress Report.(2008).XBRLInternationalInc.

Yildiz,M.(2007).e-Governmentresearch:Review-ing the literature, limitations, and ways forward.Government Information Quarterly,24(3),646–665.doi:10.1016/j.giq.2007.01.002.

Yin,R. (1994).Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Yin,R. (2003).Case study research: Design and methods(3rded.).ThousandOaks,CA:SagePub-lications.

ENDNOTES1 http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/

corporateDocuments/frameworkDocument.pdf(page2).

2 http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/toolsTo-Help/chdDirectInfo.shtml

3 Ninety Data aggregators include D&B,Equifax,ExperionandICCinformation.Formore information,pleasevisit:http://www.oci-gmbh.net/oci/marktforschung/Compa-nies_House_Example_Aug-2007.pdf

4 In February 2001, networks of financial,accounting,softwareandgovernmentcom-munitiesmet inLondon and supported theestablishmentofXBRLInc.asanon-profitorganizationtopromoteXBRLadoptionandthe development of XBRL specifications.XBRL International Inc.’s membershipsreached approximately 550 companies, as-sociations and government agencies in 23jurisdictionsworldwide inNovember2008(XBRLProgressReport,2008).

5 Formore information aboutXBRL, pleaseseetheAppendix.



6 IFRSisanabbreviationofInternationalFi-nancialReportingStandards.

7 http://www.xbrl.org/Announcements/Com-paniesHouse-1Feb2006.htm

8 http://myicwai.com/manacc/April_Final.pdf(p.295).

9 http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/busRegArchive/RegIssue72.pdf

Rania Mousa is an Assistant Professor of Accounting at Schroeder Family School of Business Administration, University of Evansville, Indiana, USA. She earned her Ph.D. in Accounting Information Systems from Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham, UK (2010) and her B.A. in Accounting from the American University in Cairo, Egypt (2000). She received an MBA degree from Illinois Institute of Technology (2002). Rania was awarded 2011’s Van-germeersch Manuscript Award by the Academy of Accounting Historians for her paper, “The Development of Electronic Filing Process: HM Revenue & Customs, 1960s-2010.” Her research interests are electronic government, Extensible Business Reporting Language, technology adop-tion, development and innovation and data security issues. She has published in journals such as JournalofFinanceandtheCommonGood and the GSTFJournalonBusinessReviewandElectronicGovernment:An International Journal. She has co-authored a book chapter with Yu-Che Chen, titled “E-GovernmentAdoptionofXBRL:AnU.K. /U.S.A.Comparison,” in Weerakkody V. and Reddick C. (eds.), PublicSectorTransformation throughE-Government:ExperiencesfromEuropeandNorthAmerica,New York: Routledge.



APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

Companies House’s Archived Documentation

C1:StatusofXBRLatCompaniesHouse.PresentationdeliveredatXBRLInternationalCon-ference,London,2006.

C2:CompaniesHouse:ChangetheRecord.PresentationdeliveredbyArthurWest,CompaniesHouse,2009.

C3:RegistrarMagazine,issue33,Spring1997.C4:RegistrarMagazine,issue38,Winter1998.C5:RegistrarMagazine,issue40,Summer1999.C6:RegistrarMagazine,issue42,Winter2000.C7:RegistrarMagazine,issue43,Spring2000.C8:RegistrarMagazine,issue44,Summer2000.C9:RegistrarMagazine,issue45,Winter2000.C10:RegistrarMagazine,issue46,Spring2001.C11:RegistrarMagazine,issue47,Summer2001.C12:RegistrarMagazine,issue48,Winter2001.C13:RegistrarMagazine,issue49,Spring2002.C14:RegistrarMagazine,issue50,February2002.C15:RegistrarMagazine,issue55,July2003.C16:RegistrarMagazine,issue56,October2003.C17:RegistrarMagazine,issue57,March2004.C18:RegistrarMagazine,issue59,June2004.C19:RegistrarMagazine,issue60,September2004.C20:RegistrarMagazine,issue61,November2004.

Table 1. Summary of companies house’s interviewees’ details

Interviewee Position Relevance to the Case Study

CH 1 Senior Project Manager Usedtobetheprojectmanagerofthee-Accountsprogram,responsibleforimplementingelectronicfilingsystemsatCH.

CH 2 Head of Development Duringtheinitialstageoflaunchinge-Accountsprogramat2005,sheusedtoworkastheServiceTransformationprogrammanager.

CH 3 Business/Systems Analyst UsedtoworkasasenioranalystatoneofU.K.’stelecommunicationscompaniesandjoinedCHin2005asasystemanalystresponsibleforinterpretingXBRLelements,validationrulesandrenderingissueswithaccountants.

CH 4 Director of Accountancy Profession

ProvidedintroductoryinformationaboutXBRLadoptionprocessatCH.HealsofacilitatedconductinginterviewswiththeotherresearchparticipantsinvolvedinXBRLadoption.



C21:RegistrarMagazine,issue62,June2005.C22:RegistrarMagazine,issue63,October2005.C23:RegistrarMagazine,issue64,March2006.C24:RegistrarMagazine,issue65,July2006.C25:RegistrarMagazine,issue66,October-December2006.C26:RegistrarMagazine,issue67,February2007.C27:RegistrarMagazine,issue68,August2007.C28:RegistrarMagazine,issue69,April2008.C29:RegistrarMagazine,issue70,December2008.C30:RegistrarMagazine,issue71,October2009.

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

Fundamentals of XBRL

XBRL Taxonomy

XBRLtaxonomyisusedtodefineandmapthedataelementsandrelationshipsforspecificreport-ingpurposes,suchasreportingfinancialinformationundertheGAAP.Taxonomyisconsideredadictionaryofallbusinessandfinancialterminologythatcouldbeusedinfinancialandbusinessreports.PublictaxonomiessuchasInternationalFinancialReportingStandards-GeneralPurpose(IFRS-GP),defineelementsandrelationshipsbetweenthemaccordingtoparticularlegislationorstandards,suchasInternationalFinancialReportingStandardsorInternationalAccountingStandards.However,organizationsarerequiredtoincludeintheirreportsadditionalconceptsto

Table 2. Index to companies house online forms

Form or Document Filed Company Act 1985 Company Act 2006

Change of Registered Office Address

IftheformissignedonorbeforeSeptember30,2009,Form287shouldbeused.

IftheformissignedonorafterOc-tober1,2009,FormAD01shouldbeused.

Director and Secretary Ifthedateoftheappointment,ter-minationofappointmentorchangeindetailsisonorbeforeSeptember30,2009,Forms288a,288bor288cshouldbeused.

Ifthedateoftheappointment,ter-minationofappointmentorchangeofdetailsisonorafterOctober1,2009,FormsAP01,AP02,AP03,AP04,TM01,TM02,CH01,CH02,CH03orCH04shouldbeused.

Annual Return IfthemadeupdateisonorbeforeSeptember30,2009,Form363ashouldbeused.

IfthemadedateisonorafterOc-tober1,2009,FormAR01shouldbeused.AnnualreturnswithamadedateonorafterOctober1,2009whicharereceivedwithoutafeewillberejected.



definespecificreportingprocedureswhichmaynotbecoveredbygeneraltaxonomies.XBRLallowsforaddingadditionalextensionswithout jeopardizingdataconsistency,andthesearecalledtaxonomyextensions.

Schema

AnXBRLSchema is used to define and keep information about taxonomy elements.Thisprovidesthecomputerwithinformationonwhatitrepresents.Ascomputersarenotdevelopedto have specific accounting knowledge, they have to be programmed to process particularconcepts,meaningsandcharacteristics.InthecaseofCompaniesHouse,animportantfeatureofXBRLSchemaisthatneitherorganizationsnortheiragentsneedtoknowspecifictechnicalknowledgeofXBRLimplementationtoelectronicallyfileaccounts.XBRLcanbeimbeddedinaspreadsheet,andusersdonothavetoknowhowtheunderlyingprogramfunctions,soXBRLissimplyareportingtool.

XBRL Documents

XBRLdocumentsarereferredto“instancedocuments.”ThesedocumentscouldbegeneratedbyXBRL-compatiblesoftwareapplication,asdefinedbyXBRLSpecifications(Deshmukh,2004).InstancedocumentsusuallyhaveastandardformatincludingtaggeddataelementsastheyaredefinedinXBRLtaxonomy.Onceinstancedocumentsareproduced,theycanbevalidatedandprocessedbysoftwareapplication.Themostimportantfeatureofinstancedocumentisthestan-dardizeddatathatrepresentbusinessandfinancialinformationthatcanbeutilizedfordifferentpurposesbydifferentusergroups.Thishelpsinminimizingthedatainconsistencies.OncesuchdataaretaggedinXBRL,usersdonothavetore-enterthedataagain,anddatacanbeeasilycommunicatedinitsoriginalformacrossdifferentsoftwareapplication.

E-Government Adoption in the U.K.: XBRL Project

Documents

Transcript of E-Government Adoption in the U.K.: XBRL Project