簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 李卓翰
Lee, Cho-Han
論文名稱： A Study of the Factors Influencing the Willingness of Enterprise to Adopt XBRL–Using of TTF Model as Example
A Study of the Factors Influencing the Willingness of Enterprise to Adopt XBRL–Using of TTF Model as Example
指導教授： 張心馨
Chang, Hsin-Hsin
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 管理學院 - 企業管理學系
Department of Business Administration
論文出版年： 2005
畢業學年度： 93
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 95
外文關鍵詞： Task-Technology Fit, Data Quality, Reusability, eXtensible Business Reporting Language
相關次數： 點閱：85  下載：2 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • none

    The eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) is an emerging technology standard that facilitates the business reporting process. Observers predict that, after a given period of time, interest in XBRL will soar. However, the process of XBRL development in Taiwan is still in the initial stage. We want to assess the factors influencing the willingness of enterprises to adopt XBRL.
    The major objectives of this research have been to investigate the factors that influence the enterprise in its adoption of XBRL. In our framework, we use the Task-Technology Fit model to investigate internal factors, and Environmental Characteristics as external factors. We used regression analyses to assess the degree of impact from these factors, and used student t-test to determine whether the differences between characteristics of different enterprises influence the willingness to adopt. The implications from this research are:
    1. Task Characteristics has significant impact on Task-Technology Fit. Once an enterprise highly involves in system integrating task, it would expect to have highly system performance from adopting XBRL.
    2. XBRL Characteristics has positive impact on Task-Technology Fit. It appears that enterprises deem Reusability as key factor to improve reporting efficiency.
    3. Task-Technology Fit, especially its Data Quality dimension, has a positive association with Willingness to adopt.
    4. Enterprises are more influenced by external variables than internal considerations when contemplating XBRL adoption. The pressures from Investors had a significant association with willingness to adopt.
    5. Company characteristics don’t differ between high and low willingness to adopt groups, suggesting these are not major determinants of XBRL adoption.

    Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Research Background and Motivation 1 1.2 Research Objectives 6 1.3 Research Structure and Research Flow 7 Chapter 2 Literature Review 10 2.1 Web-Based Financial Reporting 10 2.2 The Demand of System Integration 17 2.3 XBRL 19 2.4 Task-Technology Fit Model 27 2.5 Environmental Characteristics 33 Chapter 3 Research Framework and Methodology 39 3.1 Research Framework 39 3.2 Measurement of Variables and Research Hypotheses 41 3.3 Research Sample 57 3.4 Data Analysis Procedures 57 Chapter 4 Data Analysis and Results 59 4.1 Respondent Profiles 59 4.2 Factor Analysis and Reliability Test 61 4.3 Regressions Analyses 68 4.4 Cluster Analysis and Students t-test 73 Chapter 5 Conclusion and Suggestions 78 5.1 Test of Research Hypotheses 78 5.2 Practical Implications 79 5.3 Contribution 81 5.4 Limitations and Recommendations 83 Reference 85 Appendix: Survey Questionnaire 90 List of Tables Table 2-1 Industry Distribution of Sample 14 Table 2-2 Frequency of Disclosure Items by Sample Source 15 Table 2-3 An Illustration of XML and HTML 22 Table 3-1 Definitions of Three Task Characteristics Factors 46 Table 3-2 Definitions of Three XBRL Characteristics Factors 49 Table 3-3 Definitions of Four TTF Factors 50 Table 4-1 Characteristics of Sample Firms 60 Table 4-2 Factor Analyses and Reliability Tests: Task Characteristics 63 Table 4-3 Factor Analyses and Reliability Tests: XBRL Characteristics 64 Table 4-4 Factor Analyses and Reliability Tests: TTF 65 Table 4-5 Factor Analyses and Reliability tests: Environmental Characteristics 67 Table 4-6 Regression Analyses: Influence of Task and XBRL Characteristics on TTF 69 Table 4-7 Regression Analyses: Influence of TTF and Environmental Characteristics on Willingness to Adopt 71 Table 4-8 Summary of H1~H4 Testing Results 73 Table 4-9 t-test analysis among high and low Willingness to Adopt 74 Table 4-10 t-test Comparison: Task Characteristics 74 Table 4-11 t-test Comparison: TTF 75 Table 4-12 t-test Comparison: Environmental Characteristics 76 Table 4-13 t-test Comparison: Characteristic of Company 76 Table 5-1 Summary of Hypotheses Testing Results 78 List of Figures Figure 1-1 The Flow Chart of This Research 9 Figure 2-1 The Technology-to-Performance Chain 30 Figure 3-1 Conceptual Framework of This Research 40

    1. Ashbaugh, H., Johnstone, K. M. and Warfield, T. D. (1999), “Corporate Reporting on the Internet”, Accounting Horuzons, 13(3):241-257
    2. Bergeron, B. (2003), Essentials of XBRL: Financial Reporting in the 21st Century, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    3. Berkeley, A., Connors, J. and Willis, M. (2002), The Road to Better Business Information: Making a Case for XBRL, PricewaterhouseCoopers
    4. Bovee, M., Ettredge, M. L., Strivastava R. P., and Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2002), “Does the Year 2000 XBRL taxonomy accommodate current business financial-reporting practice?”, Journal of Information Systems, 16(2):165-182
    5. Bradford, M. and Florin, J (2003), “Examining the role of innovation diffusion factors on the implementation success of enterprise resource planning systems”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 4:205-225
    6. Coffin, Z. (2001), “The top 10 effects of XBRL”, Strategic Finance, 82(12):64-67
    7. Cohen, E. and Hannon, N. (2000), “How XBRL will change your practice”, The CPA Journal, 70(11):36-41
    8. Collet, L., Hamscher, W., Tesniere, B. and Willis, M. (2004), Standards Based Regulatory Reporting – Achieving Immediate and Long-Term Reporting Efficiency via XBRL and Web Services, PricewaterhouseCoopers
    9. Covaleski, J. M. (2000), “The Next Technology Revolution: XBRL”, Accounting Today, 14(8):1-2
    10. Cragg, P. B. and King, M. (1993), “Small-Firm Computing: Motivators and Inhibitors”, MIS Quarterly, 17(1):47-60
    11. Davies, C. E., Keuer, W. P. and Clements, C. (2002), “Web-Based Reporting”, The CPA Journal, 72(11):28-34
    12. Debreceny, R. and Gray, G. L. (2001), “The production and use of semantically rich accounting reports on the Internet: XML and XBRL”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 2:47-74
    13. Dishaw, M. T. and Strong, D. M. (1999), “Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs”, Information & Management, 36:9-21
    14. Dull, R. B., Graham, A. W. and Baldwin, A. A. (2003), “Web-Based Financial Statements: Hypertext Links to Footnotes and Their Effect on Decisions”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 4:185-203
    15. Ettredge, M., Richardson, V. J. and Scholz, S. (2001), “The Presentation of Financial Information at Corporate Web Sites”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 2:149-168
    16. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), Business Reporting Research Project, http://www.fasb.org/
    17. Fink, D. (1998), “Guidelines for the Successful Adoption of Information Technology in Small and Medium Enterprises”, International Journal of Information Management, 18(4):243-253
    18. Foroughi, D., McGuire, B. L., Kocakulah, M. C. and Maier-Lytle, J. (2001), “XBRL: The Future of Online Financial Data”, The National Public Accountant, 46(4):49-51
    19. Franke, D. and Buys, P. (2004), Planning for the Future – Case Study: South African XBRL Retirement Fund Initiative, PricewaterhouseCoopers
    20. Gatignon H. and Robertson, T. S. (1989), “Technology Diffusion: An Empirical Test of Competitive Effects”, Journal of Marketing, 53(1):35-49
    21. Goodhua, D. L., Wybo, M. D. and Kirsch, L. J. (1992), “The Impact of Data Integration on the Costs and Benefits of Information Systems”, MIS Quarterly, 16(3):293-311
    22. Goodhua, D. L. and Thompson, R. L. (1995), “Task-Technology fit and individual performance”, MIS Quarterly, 19(2):213-236
    23. Goodhua, D. L. (1995), “Understanding user evaluations of information systems”, Management Science, 41(12):1827-1844
    24. Goodhue, D. L., Littlefield, R. and Straub, D. W. (1997), “The Measurement of the Impact of the IIC on the End-Users: The Survey”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(5):454-465
    25. Goodhue, D. L. (1997), “The Model Underlying the Measurement of the Impacts of the IIC on the End-Users”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(5):449-453
    26. Goodhue, D. L. (1998), “Development and Measurement Validity of a Task-Technology Fit Instrument for User Evaluation of Information Systems”, Decision Sciences, 29(1):105-137
    27. Goodhua, D. L. and Klein, B. D. and March, S. T. (2000), “User evaluations of IS as surrogates for objective performance”, Information & Management, 38:87-101
    28. Grover, V., Goslar, M., and Segars A. (1995), “Adoptions of Telecommunications Initiatives: A profile of Progressive US Corporations”, International Journal of Information Management, 15(1):33-46
    29. Hamscher, W. (2002a), Strengthening the Pillars of the New Accord using XBRL, http://www.xbrl.org
    30. Hamscher, W. (2002b), XBRL in Taxation: The Business Case, XBRL International
    31. Hannon, N. (2001), “XBRL will spread quickly”, Strategic Finance, 82(12):68-69
    32. Hannon, N. (2003), “Challenge to Accountants: Go Digital”, Strategic Finance, 85(3):61-62
    33. Hannon, N. (2004a), “XBRL and Metcalfe’s Rule of technological change”, Strategic Finance, 85(7):57-58
    34. Hannon, N. (2004b), “Why should Management accountants care about XBRL?”, Strategic Finance, 86(1):55-56
    35. Haseqawa, M., Sakata T., Sambuichi N., and Hannon, N. (2004), “Breathing new life into old systems”, Strategic Finance, 85(9):46-51
    36. Hodge, F. D., Kennedy, J. J., and Maines, L. A. (2004), “Does search-facilitating technology improve the transparency of financial reporting?”, The Accounting Review, 79(3):687-703
    37. Iacovou, C. L., Benbasat, I., and Dexter, A. S. (1995), “Electronic Data Interchange and Small Organizations: Adoption and Impact of Technology”, MIS Quarterly, 19(4):465-485
    38. Koreto, R. (1997), “When the bottom line is online”, Journal of Accountancy, 183:63-65
    39. Naumann, J. W. (2004), “Tap into XBRL’s power the easy way”, Journal of Accountancy, 197(5):32-39
    40. O’Callaghan, R., Kaufmann, R. J., and Konsynski, B. R. (1992), “Adoption Correlates and Share Effects of Electronic Data Interchange Systems in Marketing Channels”, Journal of Marketing, 56(2):45-56
    41. Penler, P. and Schnitzer, M. (2002), Web-Enabled Business Reporting, Ernst & Young LLP and Morgan Stanley
    42. Penler, P. and Naumann, J. (2003), XBRL-Enabled Accounting Software Solutions: A Study of Leading Vendors, XBRL US Adoption Committee
    43. Petravick, S. (1999), “Online Financial Reporting”, The CPA Journal, 69(2):32-36
    44. Powell, N. (2002), “Languages of the Future”, Taxation, 244-245
    45. Premkumar, G., Ramamurthy, K., and Crum, M. (1997), “Determinants of EDI adoption in the transportation industry”, European Journal of Information Systems, 6:107-121
    46. Premkumar, G. and Roberts, M. (1999), “Adoption of new information technologies in rural small business”, Omega, 27:467-484
    47. Ramamurthy, K. and Premkumar, G. (1995), “Determinants and Outcomes of Electronic Data Interchange Diffusion”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42(4):332-351
    48. Rezaee, Z., Elam, R. and Sharbatoghlie, A. (2001), “Continuous auditing: the audit of the future”, Managerial Auditing Journal, 16(3):150-158
    49. SoftWARE AG (2002), Understanding the XML Standard for Business Reporting and Finance, SoftWARE AG
    50. Thomas, I. and Nejmeh, B. (1992), “Definition of Tool Integration for Environment” IEEE Software, March: 29-35
    51. Thong, J. Y. L. and Yap, C. S. (1995), “CEO Characteristics, Organizational Characteristics and Information Technology Adoption in Small Business”, Omega, 23(4):429-442
    52. Thong, J. Y. L. (1999), “An Integrated Model of Information Systems Adoption in Small Business”, Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(4):187-214
    53. Turner, J., Jones, J., Law, C., Nardin, D., Pryde, C., Showalter, S., Shuetrim, G., and Dyrner, L. (2004), Improving Regulatory Reporting – Realizing the Benefits of XBRL, KPMG
    54. van Kanon, D. (2004), “Why Is XBRL So Hard?”, Strategic Finance, 86(2):49-51
    55. Wang, D. W. (2002), An XBRL Taxonomy for Taiwan’s Commercial and Industrial Companies, Taiwan University Master’s Thesis
    56. Willis, M. (2003), “Corporate reporting enters the information age”, Regulation, 26(3):56-60
    57. Willis, M., Tesniere, B. and Jones, A. (2002) Corporate Communications for the 21st Century, PricewaterhouseCoopers
    58. Wagenhofer, A. (2003), “Economic consequences of internet financial reporting”, Schmalenbach Business Review : ZFBF, 55(4):262-279
    59. Zigurs, L. and Buckland, B. K. (1998), “ A Theory of Task-Technology Fit and Group Support Systems Effectiveness”, MIS Quarterly, 22(3):313-334

    下載圖示 校內：立即公開
    校外：2005-08-04公開
    QR CODE