Exploring XBRL-Based Reporting System: A Conceptual Framework for System Adoption and Implementation

  • Dhata PradityaEmail author
  • Reni Sulastri
  • Nitesh Bharosa
  • Marijn Janssen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9844)


XBRL has been established as a financial reporting standard in the last 15 years. Many countries already adopting XBRL-based reporting system. In some countries it mandated by the government and for the other voluntary. IT adoption and implementation already existed as a separate process. To get more comprehensive analysis, this article aims to propose a unified conceptual model for IT adoption and implementation processes. A literature review on inter-organizational system (IOS) was conducted to reach that objective. This resulted in a conceptual framework represented by factors influencing adoption and implementation, levels of adoption and arrangement of the system. This framework will be used in further empirical study of XBRL reporting system or in broader, analysing the implementation of inter-organizational system.


XBRL IT/IS adoption IT/IS implementation Conceptual framework Inter-organizational system Information sharing 


  1. 1.
    Chen, Y.-C.: A comparative study of e-government XBRL implementations: the potential of improving information transparency and efficiency. Gov. Inf. Q. 29(4), 553–563 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yang, T.-M., Pardo, T., Wu, Y.-J.: How is information shared across the boundaries of government agencies? An e-Government case study. Gov. Inf. Q. 31, 637–652 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rawashdeh, A., Selamat, M.H.: Critical success factors relating to the adoption of XBRL in Saudi Arabia. J. Int. Technol. Inf. Manag. 22(2), 4 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jones, A., Willis, M.: The challenge of XBRL: business reporting for the investor. Balance Sheet 11(3), 29–37 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bharosa, N., et al.: Managing the transformation to standard business reporting: principles and lessons learned from the Netherlands. In: 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (dg.o 2011). ACM, College Park (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Azam, M.S.: Intention to adopt standard business reporting in Australia: an application of the technology-organization-environment framework. RMIT University (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, Y.-C.: Improving transparency in the financial Sector: e-Government XBRL implementation in the United States. Publ. Perform. Manag. Rev. 37(2), 241–262 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunne, T., et al.: Stakeholder engagement in internet financial reporting: the diffusion of XBRL in the UK. Br. Acc. Rev. 45(3), 167–182 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu, C., et al.: The impact of XBRL adoption in PR China. Decis. Support Syst. 59, 242–249 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gauri, M.: XBRL: in India. Glob. J. Finan. Manag. 6(6), 517–522 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jeong, J.-S., Na, K.-S., You, Y.-Y.: A case study of financial statements reporting system based on XBRL taxonomy in accordance with Korean Public Institutions adoption of K-IFRS. Cluster Comput. 17(3), 817–826 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Markelevich, A., Shaw, L., Weihs, H.: The Israeli XBRL adoption experience. Acc. Perspect. 14(2), 117–133 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Avallone, F., Ramassa, P., Roncagliolo, E.: The pros and cons of XBRL adoption in Italy: a field study. In: Mancini, D., Dameri, R.P., Bonollo, E. (eds.) Strengthening Information and Control Systems. LNISO, vol. 14, pp. 157–170. Springer, Berlin (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Perdana, A., Robb, A., Rohde, F.: An integrative review and synthesis of XBRL research in academic journals. J. Inf. Syst. 29(1), 115–153 (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    O’Riain, S., Curry, E., Harth, A.: XBRL and open data for global financial ecosystems: a linked data approach. Int. J. Acc. Inf. Syst. 13(2), 141–162 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baldwin, A.A., Brown, C.E., Trinkle, B.S.: XBRL: an impacts framework and research challenge. J. Emerg. Technol. Acc. 3(1), 97–116 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim, J.W., Lim, J.-H., No, W.G.: The effect of first wave mandatory XBRL reporting across the financial information environment. J. Inf. Syst. 26(1), 127–153 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rezaee, Z., Elam, R., Sharbatoghlie, A.: Continuous auditing: the audit of the future. Manag. Audit. J. 16(3), 150–158 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khadaroo, M.I.: Business reporting on the internet in Malaysia and Singapore: a comparative study. Corp. Commun.: Int. J. 10(1), 58–68 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bharosa, N., et al.: Tapping into existing information flows: the transformation to compliance by design in business-to-government information exchange. Gov. Inf. Q. 30(Suppl. 1), S9–S18 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Robey, D., Im, G., Wareham, J.D.: Theoretical foundations of empirical research on interorganizational systems: assessing past contributions and guiding future directions. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 9(9), 4 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Landsbergen Jr., D., Wolken Jr., G.: Realizing the promise: government information systems and the fourth generation of information technology. Publ. Adm. Rev. 61(2), 206–220 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    XBRL-International, XBRL Specification 2.1. (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kernan, K.: XBRL around the world. J. Acc. 206(4), 62 (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Müller-Wickop, N., Schultz, M., Nüttgens, M.: XBRL: impacts, issues and future research directions. In: Rabhi, F.A., Gomber, P. (eds.) FinanceCom 2012. LNBIP, vol. 135, pp. 112–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rawashdeh, A.: Suggested model for XBRL adoption. Int. J. Res. Commer. Manag. 3(5), 93–96 (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhu, H., Wu, H.: Interoperability of XBRL financial statements in the US. Int. J. E-Bus. Res. (IJEBR) 7(2), 19–33 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chang, C., Jarvenpaa, S.: Pace of information systems standards development and implementation: the case of XBRL. Electron. Mark. 15(4), 365–377 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Doolin, B., Troshani, I.: Organizational adoption of XBRL. Electron. Mark. 17(3), 199–209 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Magalhaes, R.M.: The organizational implementation of information systems: towards a new theory. The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) (1999)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thompson, V.A.: Bureaucracy and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 10, 1–20 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Myers, M.D.: A disaster for everyone to see: an interpretive analysis of a failed IS project. Acc. Manag. Inf. Technol. 4(4), 185–201 (1994)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Henderson, D., Sheetz, S.D., Trinkle, B.S.: The determinants of inter-organizational and internal in-house adoption of XBRL: a structural equation model. Int. J. Acc. Inf. Syst. 13(2), 109–140 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Troshani, I., Rao, S.: Drivers and inhibitors to XBRL adoption: a qualitative approach to build a theory in under-researched areas. Int. J. E-Bus. Res. 3(4), 98 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rostami, M., Nayeri, M.D.: Investigation on XBRL adoption based on TOE model. Br. J. Econ. Manag. Trade 7(4), 269–278 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Janssen, M., van der Voort, H., van Veenstra, A.: Failure of large transformation projects from the viewpoint of complex adaptive systems: management principles for dealing with project dynamics. Inf. Syst. Front. 17, 1–15 (2014)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Enachi, M., Andone, I.I.: The progress of XBRL in Europe – projects, users and prospects. Proc. Econ. Finan. 20, 185–192 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mousa, R.: E-Government adoption in the UK: XBRL project. Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res. (IJEGR) 9(2), 101–119 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Davis, Jr. F.D.: A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1986)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Premkumar, G., Bhattacherjee, A.: Explaining information technology usage: a test of competing models. Omega 36(1), 64–75 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35(8), 982–1003 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hossain, M.A., Quaddus, M.: The adoption and continued usage intention of RFID: an integrated framework. Inf. Technol. People 24(3), 236–256 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Aizstrauta, D., Ginters, E., Eroles, M.-A.P.: Applying theory of diffusion of innovations to evaluate technology acceptance and sustainability. Proc. Comput. Sci. 43, 69–77 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    DePietro, R., Wiarda, E., Fleischer, M.: The context for change: organization, technology and environment. In: Tornatzky, L.G., Fleischer, M. (eds.) The Processes of Technological Innovation, pp. 151–175. Lexington Books, Lexington (1990)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bosch-Rekveldt, M., et al.: Grasping project complexity in large engineering projects: the TOE (Technical, Organizational and Environmental) framework. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29(6), 728–739 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Oliveira, T., Martins, M.F.: Information technology adoption models at firm level: review of literature. In: European Conference on Information Management and Evaluation. Academic Conferences International Limited (2010)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gangwar, H., Date, H., Raoot, A.: Review on IT adoption: insights from recent technologies. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 27(4), 488–502 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Awa, H.O., et al.: Integrating TAM and TOE frameworks and expanding their characteristic constructs for e-Commerce adoption by SMEs. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag. 6(1), 76–94 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rui, G.: Information systems innovation adoption among organizations-A match-based framework and empirical studies (2007)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Dedrick, J., West, J.: Why firms adopt open source platforms: a grounded theory of innovation and standards adoption. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Standard Making: A Critical Research Frontier for Information Systems, Seattle, WA (2003)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ginters, E., Barkane, Z., Vincent, H.: Systems dynamics use for technologies assessment. In: 22th European Modeling and Simulation Symposium (EMSS 2010). DIPTEM University of Genoa (2010)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Janvrin, D.J., Pinsker, R.E., Mascha, M.F.: XBRL-enabled, spreadsheet, or PDF? Factors influencing exclusive user choice of reporting technology. J. Inf. Syst. 27(2), 35–49 (2013)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Chouhan, V.: Analysis of XBRL implementation by technology adoption model (TAM) in Rajasthan. SANJAY DIXIT, p. 18 (2015)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Borgman, H.P., et al.: Cloudrise: exploring cloud computing adoption and governance with the TOE framework. In: 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-46). IEEE Computer Society, Wailea (2013)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rahim, M.M., Shanks, G.G., Johnston, R.B.: Understanding IOS adoption processes in a first-tier automotive supplier company: an application of the theory of IOS adoption motivation. In: ECIS (2006)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sledgianowski, D., Fonfeder, R., Slavin, N.S.: Implementing XBRL reporting. CPA J. 80(8), 68 (2010)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Garner, D., et al.: The different levels of XBRL adoption. Manag. Acc. Q. 14(2), 1–10 (2013)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Saha, P.: Advancing the whole-of-government enterprise architecture adoption with strategic (systems) thinking. In: Enterprise Architecture as Platform for Connected Government. NUS Institute of Systems Science, Singapore (2010)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Klievink, B., Bharosa, N., Tan, Y.-H.: The collaborative realization of public values and business goals: governance and infrastructure of public–private information platforms. Gov. Inf. Q. 33(1), 67–79 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Cooper, R.B., Zmud, R.W.: Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approach. Manag. Sci. 36(2), 123–139 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Liu, C.: XBRL: a new global paradigm for business financial reporting. J. Glob. Inf. Manag. (JGIM) 21(3), 60–80 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Barrett, S., Konsynski, B.: Inter-organization information sharing systems. MIS Q. 6, 93–105 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hung, W.-H., et al.: Critical factors of adopting enterprise application integration technology: an empirical study on larger hospitals. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 36(1), 31 (2015)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Singerling, T., et al.: Exploring factors that influence information sharing choices of organizations in networks. In: AMCIS 2015: Americas Conference on Information Systems, Puerto Rico, 13–15 August 2015 (2015)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Savoldelli, A., Codagnone, C., Misuraca, G.: Understanding the e-Government paradox: learning from literature and practice on barriers to adoption. Gov. Inf. Q. 31(Suppl. 1), S63–S71 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Sayogo, D.S., Gil-Garcia, J.R.: Understanding the determinants of success in inter-organizational information sharing initiatives: results from a national survey. In: Proceedings of 15th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hart, P., Saunders, C.: Power and trust: critical factors in the adoption and use of electronic data interchange. Organ. Sci. 8(1), 23–42 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Sambamurthy, V., Zmud, R.W.: Arrangements for information technology governance: a theory of multiple contingencies. MIS Q. 23, 261–290 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Shan, Y.G., Troshani, I., Richardson, G.: An empirical comparison of the effect of XBRL on audit fees in the US and Japan. J. Contemp. Acc. Econ. 11(2), 89–103 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Laudon, K.C., Laudon, J.P., Brabston, M.E.: Management Information Systems: Managing the Digital Firm, vol. 12. Pearson, Upper Saddle River (2012)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kuan, K.K., Chau, P.Y.: A perception-based model for EDI adoption in small businesses using a technology–organization–environment framework. Inf. Manag. 38(8), 507–521 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Zhang, J., Dawes, S.S., Sarkis, J.: Exploring stakeholders’ expectations of the benefits and barriers of e-Government knowledge sharing. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 18(5), 548–567 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Baker, J.: The technology–organization–environment framework. In: Dwivedi, Y.K., Wade, M.R., Schneberger, S.L. (eds.) Information Systems Theory, pp. 231–245. Springer, New York (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B.: Complementarities between organizational IT architecture and governance structure. Inf. Syst. Res. 21(2), 288–304 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dhata Praditya
    • 1
    Email author
  • Reni Sulastri
    • 1
  • Nitesh Bharosa
    • 1
  • Marijn Janssen
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Technology, Policy and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyDelftNetherlands

Personalised recommendations