XBRL实施战略-三种方式

是 否 +2 论坛币

k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群

赵安豆老师微信：zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

立即领取

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币！

+2 论坛币

Gianluca Gaberllotto是XBRL和XBRL GL的商业和技术领域的国际知名专家。他现任XBRL GL工作小组主任，曾任XBRL 准则委员会委员。联系方式：gg@iphix.net。


Gianluca Garbellotto 介绍了XBRL实施战略的三种方式，分别为：
插入法（Bolt-on Approach）-最简便、最基本的方法。
内置法（Built-in Approach）-通常要求合并/报告应用软件支持XBRL分类标准。
深度嵌入法（Deeply Embeded Approach）-使用XBRL GL。

Approaches to XBRL Implementation

For companies considering their response to the immediate requirements of the mandate, there are several solutions. Some appear simple and straightforward, but they merely serve as a patch on a more complex problem. Others might involve more work at first, but they can decrease the cost of complying with the mandate as well as the costs of other existing consolidation, management reporting, and compliance processes.

Bolt-on. Many companies may be tempted to use the bolt-on approach, where reports subject to the mandate are converted to XBRL after they have been generated in a traditional format, such as Microsoft Excel or Word. The conversion can be outsourced or performed internally using an XBRL mapping and instance creation application. Because the process of generating the original underlying source report doesn't change, there are no particular benefits to this approach other than achieving compliance with the mandate. It becomes another step in the process, creating extra work and expenses without any value-added benefits. Any changes in the specific compliance requirements that drive the report will result in the need to change both the generation process of the report and its mapping for conversion to XBRL.

While a bolt-on approach may seem to be the simplest approach when considering the requirements in the first year of the mandate, the second-year requirements--in which every number, percent, share, or other quantity must be tagged, even in the Notes to the Financial Statements--exponentially increase the amount of reporting concepts to be tagged. This makes more-automated means desirable.

Built in at reporting applications level. This approach requires that the reporting applications support mapping to XBRL reporting taxonomies. In this solution, XBRL is embedded in the reporting process, enabling significant process benefits in the aggregation of data, the review chain, the assembly of the final reports, and more. With the contextual use of different XBRL taxonomies, this approach also allows a company to extend the use of XBRL to external and internal reporting purposes, something that can't be done efficiently with the bolt-on approach.

Deeply embedded in ERP applications and ledgers. This approach uses the XBRL GL taxonomy to provide a standardized, consistent view of the detailed information used to create the summarized reports represented with XBRL taxonomies for internal and external reporting--no matter what system that detailed information was generated from or resides in. This enables process changes that go well beyond the generation of SEC filings to address key issues common to every corporate environment: efficient systems integration; a seamless audit trail; consistent application of standardized validation rules, business rules, and controls across disparate data stores; and more. Generating the XBRL filings to comply with the SEC mandate is achieved as a byproduct of an XBRL-enabled internal process. Rather than requiring a one-to-one mapping between each report and the corresponding taxonomy--a rigid, inefficient process--compliance is the result of standardizing the internal reporting process and making it more efficient.

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

分享0 收藏0 回帖

关键词：XBRL Requirements Applications Standardized Application 战略

XBRL implementation strategies: the bolt-on approach.

The Bolt-on Approach

With the bolt-on approach, relevant filings are generated in a traditional format--typically Microsoft Word or Excel--and are created by following the same process already in use by the company. Once finalized, the filings are converted into XBRL either internally using an XBRL mapping tool or externally by outsourcing the conversion process.

There are a number of XBRL mapping tools that can be used for the conversion. Because Excel is the most frequent format for this kind of report, the mapping tools usually take the form of an Excel add-on that enables line items in the Excel report to be dragged-and-dropped onto the XBRL taxonomy elements, creating a one-to-one or many-to-one mapping. The tool then processes this mapping to create the XBRL filing, and it can be saved and reused.

A complete list of available tools can be found at www.xbrl.org/Tools. If your company is thinking about outsourcing this process, many companies and professionals are ready to provide this service. One website worth checking out to get a first-hand idea of how this may work is Try XBRL (http://tryxbrl.com), a joint effort of RR Donnelley and EDGAR Online.

Cost

An XBRL mapping tool isn't expensive--you can typically get one for around $1,000-but purchasing a tool is only the beginning: You need to learn how to use it, find your way around the XBRL US GAAP taxonomy, and come up with a repeatable process to perform the mapping and the conversion.

"Interactive Data to Improve Financial Reporting," the SEC Proposed Rule issued on May 30, 2008, that became the final rule mandating the use of XBRL, includes an extensive analysis of the estimated direct cost related to XBRL filing. The analysis is based on the experience of participants in the SEC Voluntary Filing Program (VFP). In brief, the SEC indicates that the average cost of the first submission was $30,933, and the second submission averaged $9,060. The substantial drop for the second submission reflects the learning curve between the first and second filings. The SEC warns, however, that the VFP participants who provided information for these statistics operate in XBRL-related businesses. Taking that into account, it suggests raising the average costs by about 20%.

This estimate only includes direct costs. Indirect costs are mainly related to the efficiency of the approach, the implications in terms of maintenance and changes in requirements, and the return on investment (ROI) of the investment made in the XBRL technology.

Benefits

The primary benefit of the bolt-on approach is that it's a fast way to achieve the immediate goal of compliance with the SEC mandate. For the companies that have to start filing in mid-2009 and don't have a lot of time to get ready, the bolt-on approach can be a useful way to become familiar with the technology while buying time to consider the alternatives.

Limitations

The underlying assumption in the bolt-on approach is that nothing changes in the existing process that creates the filings. The only difference is an additional step at the end (the conversion) and an additional item to maintain (the mapping tool). In this respect, XBRL is just another format to represent reports, like Excel, Word, or PDF files. There's no additional value to the business apart from achieving compliance with the SEC requirement.

Additional limitations to the bolt-on approach lie mainly in two areas: change management and adjustment to evolving reporting requirements.

If a change occurs in the compliance requirements for a certain report, that change will have to be reflected in two different places: the process to generate the report and the mapping from the report to the XBRL taxonomy.

Evolving reporting requirements pose serious threats to the efficiency and the viability of the bolt-on approach in many respects. There are lost opportunities in terms of the internal benefits that can be achieved with the XBRL technology when using one of the alternative approaches. Additionally, new reporting requirements, such as convergence of U.S. GAAP with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), will require the need to rethink any bolt-on process in place. Ways to deal with these factors will be discussed in the upcoming columns.

Even if a company decides these factors aren't immediately relevant, there are enough changes already embedded in the SEC rule for Year 2 of the mandate and beyond to cast a serious doubt on the scalability of the bolt-on approach. For example, the number of "data points" that will need to be mapped in Year 2 is about 10 times the number in Year 1. Not only is this cause to consider a more automated approach, but the Year 2 requirements also raise a question about the reusability of the process and mapping used in Year 1-regardless of whether it was performed internally or outsourced.

Resources spent on a bolt-on approach may be justified if an organization views it as a quick solution that buys time to consider a longer-term, more comprehensive strategy for XBRL implementation. In the next columns, I will discuss the built-in and deeply embedded approaches--alternatives that achieve the primary goal of compliance while also providing significant benefits for the filer. Stay tuned!

Gianluca Garbellotto is an internationally known expert on both the business and technical aspects of XBRL and XBRL GL. He is the current chair of the XBRL GL Working Group and a past member of the XBRL Standards Board. Gianluca can be contacted at gg@iphix.net.

XBRL implementation strategies: the built-in approach
n the May 2009 column, we took a closer look at the the easiest and most basic method to implementing XBRL, the bolt-on approach. This month we'll move up to the next rung of the ladder and focus on the built-in approach, where XBRL is embedded in the reporting process. Typically, the built-in approach requires that the consolidating/reporting application in use supports mapping to XBRL taxonomies. Consequently, the conversion to XBRL becomes a natural extension of the reporting process rather than being another output from a manually converted Excel spreadsheet that has no connection to the underlying systems and data.

If the consolidating/reporting application doesn't support XBRL, or if there's no such application in use, it's still possible to achieve the benefits of the built-in approach, albeit in a different way. XBRL Global Ledger (XBRL GL) can be used to standardize trial balance accounts and amounts--as well as the way in which they are aggregated into one or more end reporting "views"--corresponding to XBRL taxonomies. This can be done using inexpensive mapping software and open source components. By interposing a layer of standardization between the software applications in use within the corporate information system and the internal/external reporting layer, it generates the same results as a reporting application that supports mapping to XBRL taxonomies. (For more information on this implementation strategy and a working example, check the Convergence Assistant at www.convergence assistant.com.)

Cost

As we move away from the bolt-on approach toward more complex, embedded solutions, assessing cost becomes more a matter of quantifying the cost reductions derived from the process benefits of leveraging XBRL internally. John Stantial's article, "ROI on XBRL," for example, discusses how United Technologies Corporation (UTC) used the built-in approach to implementing XBRL and achieved a 25% overall reduction of time and costs in the corporate reporting process (Journal of Accountancy, June 2007).

Benefits
The main benefits of the built-in approach can be grouped into three categories:

Assembly and review of end reports. Compared to the bolt-on approach, it provides collaborative and contextual review (vs. the traditional linear paper document review), automated aggregation of the reports (vs. manual, spreadsheet-based aggregation), and a single reporting process (vs. the typical situation of separate processes for the General Ledger data and for everything else).

Change management in compliance requirements. If any changes are needed, there's only one place they need to be made--the reporting process. With new requirements already embedded in the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) mandate (see the discussion of the Year 2 requirements in the May 2009 column), these benefits can get to be very significant in the short/medium term--and that's before we even start to discuss other potential concerns, such as the adoption of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

Easier transition to a "deeply embedded" approach. When the built-in approach is implemented through standardization with XBRL GL at the trial balance level, it allows a seamless and gradual transition to the deeply embedded approach. Besides serving as the foundation for the creation of end reports, the trial balance is also the natural interface between internal/detailed data (transactions, documents, entries, ledgers and subledgers, journals, etc.) and aggregated reporting for internal or external use. A built-in approach based on the standardization of the trial balance and its links to end-reporting XBRL taxonomies paves the way for an easier transition to a broader use of XBRL within the corporate information system--and the significant efficiencies that broader use enables.

Limitations

With the built-in approach, there's no separation between the process to create an end report and its conversion to XBRL. This means that it's possible to drill down from the summarized data in the report to the underlying detail and to reconcile different end reports created from the same underlying data. It's important to note, however, that if the built-in approach is made possible by a specific reporting application, this reconciliation/drilldown is enabled by the application itself (in its proprietary format) and only for the data available to that application, which frequently doesn't cover 100% of the relevant corporate data. The use of XBRL GL to standardize data at the trial balance level or below overcomes this limitation.

Intermediate Step

The built-in approach opens up interesting opportunities to achieve the immediate goal of compliance while beginning to realize the benefits of leveraging XBRL for internal use. It provides a way to approach more extensive use of XBRL and represents a gradual and more effective path to standardized corporate data management.

The third, and final, column looking at XBRL implementation strategies will examine the deeply embedded approach and why it's essential to understand the implications and benefits it provides when deciding how to prepare for filing reports in XBRL.

Gianluca Garbellotto is an internationally known expert on both the business and technical aspects of XBRL and XBRL GL. He is the current chair of the XBRL GL Working Group and a past member of the XBRL Standards Board. Gianluca can be contacted at gg@iphix.net.

实施XBRL(可扩展商业报告语言)的方法之一内置法(built-in approach)，即XBRL内置于报告流程中。一般而言，内置法要求所使用的合并/报告应用程序支持XBRL分类法。因此，转换成XBRL就成了报告流程的一种自然延伸，而不是从人工转换的Excel电子数据表中输出的又一个与基本系统和数据毫不相关的信息。
　　如果合并/报告应用程序不支持XBRL，或者如果没有使用此类应用程序，要获得内置法所带来的好处，也是可能的，但是以一种不同的方式。可以使用XBRL Global Ledger (XBRL GL) 按照XBRL分类法对试算表及其金额进行标准化，也可以对其汇总成一个或多个最终报告“形式”的方式进行标准化。这可以通过不太贵的制图软件和开放源代码来完成。通过在公司信息系统所使用的软件应用程序与内部/外部报告层次之间，插入一个标准化层次，就能生成与支持XBRL分类法的报告应用程序一样的结果。

　　收益

　　内置法所带来的主要收益可分为三类：
　　1编制和审查最终报告。较之插入法，它能在一定背景下共同审查(较之：传统的线性纸质文件审查)、自动汇总报告(较之：基于电子数据表的人工汇总)，以及单一报告流程(较之：总账数据及其他一切数据分别采用独立流程的一般情况)。
　　2合规要求方面的变革管理。如果需要任何变革，那么也只需要变革一处，即报告流程。鉴于证券交易委员会的法令中已经涵盖了新要求，这些收益在中短期内可能会相当大，而在这一期间，我们甚至还没有涉及其他潜在问题，比如，采纳国际财务报告准则(IFRS)。
　　3向“更深层次的内置法”转换便捷。如果内置法是通过采用XBRL GL在试算表层面进行标准化而实施的，那么它就允许向更深层次的内置法的渐进式无缝转换。除了作为创建最终报告的基础之外，试算表也是内部/详细数据(交易、文件、分录、分类账和明细分类账、日记账等)与供内部和外部使用的汇总报告之间的自然界面。基于试算表的标准化的内置法，及其与最终报告的XBRL分类法的联系，为扩大XBRL在公司信息系统中的使用范围铺平了道路，同时也有助于实现更广泛使用所带来的高效。

　　局限

　　在内置法中，不区分生成最终报告的流程与向XBRL的转换。这就意味着从报告中的汇总数据追溯到基本细节，以及核对根据相同数据生成的不同最终报告是可能的。但是，值得注意的是，如果内置法是通过特定报告应用程序而实现的，应用程序本身(以其专利形式)就支持对账/追溯数据，且仅适于该应用程序所能获得的数据，而这往往并不100%地涵盖公司相关数据。在试算表层面或在更低的层面使用XBRL GL 标准化数据，就能克服这个局限。
　　内置法为实现合规这个直接目标打开了一扇门，同时也为开始认识内部利用XBRL的收益提供了一个机会。它为更广泛地使用XBRL提供了一种方法，代表了一种公司数据管理标准化的更高效的渐进式方法。
　　(资料来源：美国管理会计师协会(IMA))

XBRL implementation strategies: the deeply embedded approach
In the final column of the XBRL Implementation Strategies series, I will discuss in detail the "deeply embedded" approach, the third approach to XBRL implementation introduced in the March 2009 column, "How to Make Your Data Interactive."

XBRL has proved very successful in its adoption by governments and regulators worldwide. The drivers behind its success are related to the process efficiencies and the information transparency that it enables as well as the significant cost savings that it generates in data integration, dissemination, and analysis. These drivers are key, not only for regulators but also for businesses and other entities--whether they are subject to an XBRL mandate or not. The deeply embedded approach to XBRL implementation is about leveraging those XBRL benefits within a corporate information system. It moves beyond the concept of XBRL as just another format to represent financial information with no real added value for adopters apart from immediate compliance with a regulatory mandate.

The enabler of a deeply embedded XBRL implementation is the use of the XBRL Global Ledger taxonomy (XBRL GL) to standardize the detailed data--from which end reports and regulatory filings are created--and the rules of aggregation/summarization that determine their creation. Instead of generating the end report under whatever process is currently in place and then mapping to the appropriate XBRL taxonomy, the whole process is standardized in the deeply embedded approach, including the source data.

The main purpose of this approach is to leverage the benefits that XBRL brings in terms of automation of corporate processes that are currently manual, resource-intensive, and error-prone. Compliance with XBRL mandates is only one of the benefits--and certainly not the main one. Significant cost savings in key and pervasive corporate processes can be achieved, and the extent of those savings grows the deeper XBRL is embedded within the information system--from the trial balance level down to the general ledger, journals, and, ultimately, documents and transactions.

The result is a sort of "logical"--as opposed to physical--data warehousing approach where consistent business rules and controls, templates for visualization, and analysis can be applied to the standardized data no matter what data store or software package the data was created in or where it currently resides within the corporate information system. This also enables the data to be accessed in its original format and location.

Use Cases

Use cases for deeply embedded XBRL implementations typically are geared toward internal data handling and reporting. They usually aren't discussed publicly as often as implementations focused on external reporting or compliance. The two main use cases that have been publicly disclosed are the Wacoal Group (see "Breathing New Life into Old Systems with XBRL GL," Strategic Finance, March 2004) and, more recently, the Fujitsu Group (see http://18thconference.xbrl.org/s ... g/files/hanaoka.pdf).

Costs and Benefits

Because the scope of a deeply embedded XBRL implementation is much broader than compliance with an XBRL mandate, the costs and benefits aren't comparable to the alternative approaches discussed in the previous columns of this series.

It's very difficult to provide an estimate of the costs since they depend on many factors that can vary significantly from one implementation to the other, such as the size of the organization, its structure, and the overall purposes of the implementation. Both Wacoal and Fujitsu faced the challenge of an information system distributed in a large number of units and multiple software packages. Both companies considered two possible solutions: (1) replace the existing infrastructure with a single ERP installation or (2) use XBRL to integrate each component of the existing systems. There are consistent indications in both cases that the cost and time required for completion resulted in a fraction--around one-third--of the "single ERP instance" solution.

Again, these numbers shouldn't be taken as an exact estimate, but they are an indication that the cost reductions of an XBRL deeply embedded implementation are significant and have an order of magnitude that makes them difficult to ignore. More indirect evidence of the "double-digit" savings that XBRL enables come from two implementations that aren't internal but have comparable features that provide additional insight on the significant savings generated: Standard Business Reporting (SBR) and U.S. FFIEC/FDIC XBRL.

The Standard Business Reporting project is reducing the compliance burden for businesses in The Netherlands and Australia. In The Netherlands, where SBR is in its most advanced stage of implementation, the cost savings for businesses and the government have been conservatively estimated to be [euro]350 million. Similar benefits can be achieved in the corporate environment by using XBRL to create a standardized view of internal business data and information as well as by using it as the foundation for an interactive, actionable manual of internal policies and auditing procedures/controls.

The U.S. FFIEC/FDIC XBRL-based implementation and deployment of standardized validation rules has achieved overwhelming benefits as a direct consequence. Errors in data received from banks went from 68% to 5%, processing time of the quarterly call reports that banks must submit to the FDIC was reduced from 45-60 days to two days, and the number of personnel involved in the process went from 1,000 to 200. This same model applied to internal business rules and controls in a corporate environment will accomplish even more significant efficiencies and cost savings given the pervasive process issues that it can address successfully.

Efficient and Effective

The efficiency in the use of XBRL that the deeply embedded approach to implementation brings is much greater than and not comparable with the bolt-on or built-in alternatives. At the same time, it's a more complex approach that requires careful planning, particularly if the goal is to leverage XBRL beyond the simple achievement of regulatory compliance.

In general, the internal use of XBRL enables:

* The elimination of one-way interfaces between systems,

* The elimination of manual reconciliations at all levels of data integration and summarization,

* The seamless traceability of any information to its source--a seamless audit trail--and

* The reusability of consistent templates for visualization, validation, and analysis across applications and business units.

These are key features in virtually every process that deals with corporate data, and this is why a deeply embedded XBRL implementation can easily expand to cover complex processes and issues. It's important to note, however, that this approach is very suitable to being implemented gradually. The use of XBRL for internal purposes doesn't replace the existing IT infrastructure; rather, it complements it by filling the gaps that are usually handled through manual processes. This means that its implementation can be gradual and initially address one single process deemed particularly significant or appropriate for this kind of approach. That process can be used as a pilot to test the technology, promote internal awareness, and build skills, and then implementation can be gradually extended to other processes or business units in the corporate environment.

Gianluca Garbellotto is an internationally known expert on both the business and technical aspects of XBRL and XBRL GL. He is the current chair of the XBRL GL Working Group, a past member of the XBRL Standards Board, and a member-at-large of IMA. Gianluca can be contacted at gg@iphix.net.