1. Title of presentation
X-DIS/XBRL Project 6. Accounting Frameworks and Business Statistics Adolfo Rodriguez – Software AG Software AG
1/1/2019

2. XDIS/XBRL Project Definition – Task list - Index
Task Name
Task Description
Task 1
Mapping of existing taxonomies
First of all an inventory of all relevant taxonomies at the time of the start of this pilot will have to be established.
A detailed line by line mapping exercise should be performed between the requirements in the relevant statistical legislation and these taxonomies. This will help determine whether the statistical requirements are not already available in the existing taxonomies.
Task 2
Monitoring XBRL developments
Other than the detailed analysis of the taxonomies, developments in existing XBRL projects in statistical and accounting domains should be monitored very closely. This will avoid duplicating efforts. Throughout the duration of the project, Eurostat should be kept informed of these developments and the possibilities for synergy with the pilot project should be outlined.
Task 3
Creation of a statistical taxonomy
Based on the outcome of task 3.1., it should be determined whether or not the creation of a statistical taxonomy is useful and desirable. It should also be established if a comprehensive taxonomy (encompassing all European statistical reporting requirements) should be created rather than taxonomies per statistical field (SBS, STS, BOP etc.). Member States could afterwards extend these taxonomies in order to integrate their own additional reporting requirements.
Task 4
Test phase
As suggested in the feasibility study, the taxonomies should be tested in a live environment with the cooperation of 2 or 3 NSIs. Each participating NSI would have to involve a sufficiently large number of enterprises in order to estimate the total population for which the taxonomies could be acceptable and subsequently used. A broad variety of enterprises should be covered (SMEs and listed companies, enterprises in different business lines, companies who are part of a group or consortium and individual businesses). In this phase it should also be investigated how XBRL reporting of microdata from enterprises to NSI can be brought in line with the subsequent SDMX reporting of aggregated data from NSI to Eurostat.
Task 5
Acceptance
If the test phase proves successful, it has to be established if XBRL can be proposed to the NSIs as a tool for their data collection from enterprises and whether the latter would be inclined to adopt it. Aspects of respondent burden, initial investment, and media to be used for data exchange and running costs will have to be investigated.
Task 6
The use of XBRL in surveys by the NSIs
A further issue to investigate is the use of XBRL in surveys. Is it realizable for enterprises to no longer send their information to the NSI, posting data instead on their websites? The data would be ‘picked up’ by the NSI via a web search engine with an XBRL-tag as search criterion.

3. Task 1. Mapping of existing taxonomies
“First of all an inventory of all relevant taxonomies at the time of the start of this pilot will have to be established.
A detailed line by line mapping exercise should be performed between these taxonomies and the requirements in the relevant statistical legislation. Thus it can be determined if the statistical requirements are not already available in the existing taxonomies”.
Problem Statement:
Demonstrated, on previous project, technical feasibility of XBRL as transport format for collecting statistical information. Great benefit!!!!!!
A procedure, for working out common elements, is suggested on Task List
Mapping for 3 countries concerned: Spain, Belgium and The Nederlands
¿relevant? -> (select an scope) -> SBS
Objectives
Reducing reporting burden,
Reusing FR as much as possible,
Evaluate willingness of NSI in modifying their processes and when.
Questions
European scoped taxonomy/taxonomies targeted for extension worthwhile?
If 1, comprehensive taxonomy vs. one by statistical framework?

4. Task 1. Mapping Procedure
(2)
NSI
(1)
Statistical frameworks
ENTERPRISES
SBS
STS
PRODCOM
LFS …
SCOPE
DEFINITION
MODELIZATION
MAKE INVENTORIES
OF SBS CHARACTER-ISTICS
PARAMETRIZATION
DETERMINE VALUES TO COLLECT TO MAKE SBS CHARACTERISTICS
MAP VALUES TO ACCOUNTING CONCEPS
FIND
DATA MODEL
common
industry
services/trades
construction
credit entities
insurance
pension funds
REGULATIONS
Spanish PGC-90
Belgian NBB
Dutch NTP
FIND OUT
RELATED
TAXONOMIES /
ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES
(sets of characteristics)

5. Task 1. Mapping findings
Our findings: assuming current mappings on NSIs
objective -> identify a common set of elements as source of an European taxonomy
required making difference between GAAP vs. IFRS and FR vs. GL
Based on items from an IFRS FR
Spanish case
Poor comparability information
Based on a chart of accounts
Based on items from a GAAP FR
SBS broken down
variables
Belgian case
Dutch case
Different disclosures -> not possible to obtain a set of common items.

6. Task 1. Mapping findings
SBS
National FR taxonomy 1
National FR taxonomy 2
National FR taxonomy 3
¿set of
common elements? EU
taxonomy
mappings
Our findings: supposing mappings
against FR (GAAP)
objective -> identify a common set of
elements as source of an EU taxonomy
Results from the mapping process
A set of common items is empirically attainable
A lot of extension from FR would be required
Process reengineering on NSIs complicates acceptance

7. Task 1. Mapping findings
All GAAP regulations transpose EU directives, so directives are the common set or layout of items
SBS
National FR taxonomy 1
National FR taxonomy 2
National FR taxonomy 3
¿set of
common elements? EU
taxonomy
mappings
European taxonomy for GAAP could be drawn upon EU directives. It is not required an ad-hoc or empirical mechanism as the project suggests, neither availability of FR taxonomies for National GAAPs,
FR, as primary mapping, can provide only a part of required disclosures,
Risks of acceptance on process reengineering for GAAP.
To prevent modifying NSI processes, maintain current ones (i.e. questionnaires) for GAAP scenario

8. Task 1. Conclusions
GAAP and IFRS are different scenarios with different disclosures so they provide different mappings and must be analyzed separately.
Topic
GAAP scenarios
IFRS scenarios
Task 3.
Implementation
No (re)-analysis required
Reusing variables on current questionnaires
As a reference to match project targets
Re-analysis required
Consider technology, architecture, accounting, political requirements.
Task 4. Testing
Non-intrusive scenario
Intended for extensibility (no testing)
Task 5. Acceptance
Backwards process compatibility
Process reengineering required
Align with IFRS process reengineering
Depends on the approach, reinforcing necessity of analysis
Project Questions:
EU tax. worthy?
One or more?
FR useful?
EU GAAP change process
EU Taxonomy not worthy
-----
Reusing FR not worthy, poor information quantity
Analysis required for EU IFRS
Acceptance would depend on offer.
FR much richer than GAAP so positive feeling

9. Task 3. Implementation
“Based on the outcome of task 3.1., it should be determined whether or not the creation of a statistical taxonomy is useful and desirable. It should also be established if a comprehensive taxonomy (encompassing all European statistical reporting requirements) should be created rather than taxonomies per statistical field (SBS, STS, BoP etc.). Member States could afterwards extend these taxonomies in order to integrate their own additional reporting requirements.”.
For GAAP scenarios maintaining current processes. Minimum analysis required.
DATA QUESTIONNAIRES
XBRL TAXONOMY

10. Task 3. Taxonomía X-DIS/XBRL
GAAP scenario – Spanish NSI
dgi-lc-int
dgi-lc-es
dgi-dat-inf
dgi-lc-ac
dgi-gen-ex
dgi-eco-bas
Xdis-core
Xdis-ser
Xdis-ind
Data Model

11. Task 3. Taxonomía X-DIS/XBRL
GAAP scenario – Spanish NSI
core
Ref.
xdis-core
xdis-ser
xdis-ind
ind
Label
Pres.
Calc.
ser
Ficheros de
taxonomía DGI
Investigating dimensions
Services:
Industry:

12. Task 3. Taxonomía X-DIS/XBRL
IFRS scenario
For IFRS scenarios (as a proof of concept)
xdis-eu-sbs-ci-characteristics xsd
xdis-eu-sbs-ci-variables xsd
Var.
Label
Pres.
IFRS-GP 2005
Char.
Ref.

13. Task 4. Test
“As suggested in the feasibility study, the taxonomies should be tested in a live environment with the cooperation of 2 or 3 NSIs. Each participating NSI would have to involve a sufficiently large number of enterprises in order to estimate the total population for which the taxonomies could be acceptable and subsequently used. A broad variety of enterprises should be covered (SMEs and listed companies, enterprises in different business lines, companies who are part of a group or consortium and individual businesses). In this phase it should also be investigated how XBRL reporting of microdata from enterprises to NSI can be brought in line with the subsequent SDMX reporting of aggregated data from NSI to Eurostat.”.
For GAAP scenarios we have defined a non intrusive scenario defined. As such, it is expected to involve only IT departments. ? DB
NATIONAL
STATISTICS
INSTITUTE
ENTERPRISES
XBRL format
Web Services
– SMTP
FTP
XBRL

14. ? Task 4. Test Statistical Reporting NTP ext. IFRS-GP IFRS- GP UE IFRS
EU IFRS testing process to be carried out shared with NTP experience
Statistical
Reporting
SBS EXTENSION
SBS LINKBASES
NTP ext.
IFRS-GP
IFRS- GP
UE IFRS
ext.
Financial
Reporting ?
NTP INSTANCE
EU IFRS INSTANCE

15. XBRL is not just technology
Task 5. Acceptance
“If the test phase proves successful, it has to be established if XBRL can be proposed to the NSIs as a tool for their data collection from enterprises and whether the latter would be inclined to adopt it. Aspects of respondent burden, initial investment, and media to be used for data exchange and running costs will have to be investigated.”.
GAAP maintains questionnaires (i.e. current process) so acceptance seems guaranteed
Only IFRS scenarios are considered
XBRL is not just technology
POLITICAL /
ACCOUNTING
ISSUES
Mutual dependences
TECHNICAL
FREEDOM
ARCHITECTURE
CONSTRAINTS

16. Task 5. Analysis on IFRS scenario
According to project questions, 3 possibilities on IFRS scenario:
Number of taxonomies EU
Scope
Taxonomies 1 n no
¿case 1?
yes
¿case 2?
¿case 3?
But there is a lot of freedom and unknown objectives that required definition to narrow down the problem…
General Purpose
FR tax
European
Statistics
taxonomy
National FR
tax
National Statistics taxonomy
XBRL taxonomies
Analysis for what are the objectives, minimize degrees of freedom…

17. Task 5. Analysis on IFRS scenario
Identify high level objectives:
Taxonomies based on EU FR -> Comparability on FR where the taxonomies are built-in
User-Friendliness in the taxonomy production process,
Non redundancy of concepts
Minimal technical infrastructure
Control on variables vs. decoupling roles
Reusing FR as much as possible and FR meaning definition, either common FR or the mandatory FR
Maintaining overall data model at a minimum
Including validation rules on taxonomies
for EU scope create extensible taxonomies based on EU FR directives
Enable raising of tools at short or long term?
Reducing data redundancy and i.e. reporting burden?
Which FR?
Intended control by EU
Timelines
Alignment with IASB/EFRAG evolution.
Defining business cases i.e. possibility of business tools hiding the technical ones
Data integration vs. process integration/collaboration?
Reduce burden -> unify reporting necessities for different targets (Banking = SBS + FINREP…)

18. Task 5. Analysis on IFRS scenario
Identify degrees of freedom:
XBRL is a set of artifacts. The technical possibilities and suitability of the defined topology based on the options ...
The accounting frameworks concerned (considering GAAP vs. IFRS should be a relevant issue)
The statistical frameworks concerned (5 or 6 within EU scope)
The sectors at stake, (6 in SBS but typically 3 at least, corresponding to the 3 accounting European Frameworks)
The company size (listed, SME, groups)
Several solutions for the mapping process (up to 6 source variables types)
The current state of the art in accounting and statistical practice, relevant regulations and forthcoming stages in order to evaluate an implementation strategy
The types of sources for data (6: FR, GL, variables from scratch, self referenced variables, administrative sources and rule of thumb variables) and therefore, several mapping possibilities per variable
The national institutions per country with different policies and needs
The acceptance by the institutions to modify their existing process as a consequence of the reengineering required if the collected data is modified
The technical possibilities and suitability of the defined topology based on the options ...

19. Task 5. Analysis on IFRS scenario
accounting
POLITICAL /
ACCOUNTING
ISSUES
¿ Meta-accounting ?
Mutual dependences
TECHNICAL
FREEDOM
ARCHITECTURE
CONSTRAINTS
Metadata
(XBRL)
Data

20. Task 5. Analysis on IFRS scenario
Evolution
Standardization
ENTERPRISE A
ENTERPRISE B
TECHNICAL
FREEDOM
ARCHITECTURE
CONSTRAINTS
POLITICAL /
ISSUES
Mutual dependences
accounting
accounting
¿ Meta-accounting ?
PROCESS
INTEGRATION
¿ Meta-accounting ?
Hide technical complexity
Business Level Tools
We are here
Metadata
(XBRL)
Metadata
(XBRL)
DATA EXCHANGE
Today’s software
(tech. level)
(complex)
Data
Data

21. Task 6. Surveys
“A further issue to investigate is the use of XBRL in surveys. Is it realizable for enterprises to no longer send their information to the NSI, posting data instead on their websites? The data would be ‘picked up’ by the NSI via a web search engine with an XBRL-tag as search criterion.”.
Technical feasibility for use on surveys demonstrated on Tasks 3 and 4.
For speaking about process integration, the previous issues must be uncovered
the same applies for PUSH vs. PULL reporting models (it belongs to the process integration and therefore much to do yet before)

22. Snapshot on Possibilities
GAAP
IFRS
European Taxonomy (s)
European Taxonomy (s)
yes no
yes no
REENGINEERING
AND PROCESS
MODIFICATION
NON
INTRUSIVE
APPROACH
REENGINEERING
AND PROCESS
MODIFICATION
RAISE XBRL
AWARENESS
Common Methodology
¿Unique Taxonomy? no
yes
AD HOC
TAXONOMIES
UNIQUE
TAXONOMY ? ? ?
DIFFICULT
ACCEPTANCE
ENJOYING
TECHNICAL
BENEFITS
¿WILLINGNESS
TO EXTEND?
BROAD
ANALISIS
REQUIRED
ENJOYING
TECHNICAL
BENEFITS

23. TAXONOMY PER FRAMEWORK
Further works
Find out and approve the strategy for XBRL adoption along Europe considering the detail.
1. work out the data models. Assuming a same scenario.
STATISTICAL
FRAMEWORKS
EU TAXONOMIES
¿methodology? ?
NSIs
QUESTIONNAIRES
NON EU TAXONOMY
TAXONOMY PER FRAMEWORK
UNIQUE TAXONOMY
as evolution? = ?

24. Further works Process: Work out data-models (***)
core
Label
core
Ref.
Process:
Work out data-models (***)
criteria? -> objectives
-> constraints
Structure schemas
Arrange linkbases
ind
Label
ser
Label
ind
Pres.
ser
Pres.
ind
Calc.
ser
Calc.
ind
Ref.
ser
Ref.
statistical
frameworks
core
Label
TECHNICAL
FREEDOM
ARCHITECTURE
CONSTRAINTS
POLITICAL /
ISSUES
Mutual dependences
core
Ref.
core
Label
core
Label
core
Ref.
core
Ref.
statistical
frameworks

25. Some ideas about the data model
Creating a counterpart taxonomy by EU regulation, but statistics requires further data than FR
General Purpose FR
European
Statistics Regulation
National FR
National Statistics Extension
FR tax
Statistics
taxonomy
National
tax
National Statistics taxonomy
EU Regulations
XBRL taxonomies
Creating a European Chart of accounts with the right “dimensions”, as a foundation, can require disclosing more information than requested
Required a domain analysis
¿By using algebra, an let a computer does the data model? 
Required disclosures
Raw financial concepts
Relationships
Required concepts

26. Questions?