Digital Financial Reporting Proficiency

Proficiency is the capability, skill, and knowledge that you might have for doing something.  Proficiency is a progression.  There are general levels of proficiency: literacy, fluency, mastery.

A paradigm shift is occurring. This shift is caused by the difference between how "realspace" (the real world, analog) and "cyberspace" (the internet, digital) operate.  Lawrence Lessig explains the difference in his book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace.  The book outlines what is called the Theory of Regulation or the Pathetic Dot Theory; the four forces that constrain our actions:

  • Laws and regulations:  The law threatens sanction if the rules are not obeyed.
  • Norms: Social norms are enforced by the community.
  • Markets: Supply and demand set a price on various items or behaviors.
  • Architecture: The “social architecture” whether natural (made by nature) or designed (manmade) constrain our actions.
"Digital" is a thing, it is causing many changes, and not understanding what will change, why, and how is risky. Accountants must choose what type of "cyberspace" they want.  The great transmutation to digital, things like algorithmic regulation, will cause the world to work in different ways than it has worked in the past. To achieve this, you need to understand not just your domain of knowledge; but also technology as it might be applied to your domain of knowledge.

To choose, accountants need to have digital proficiency.

Given that the IFRS Foundation is now talking about “digital financial reporting”; one could conclude that the era of XBRL-based digital financial reporting is here.  The FASB talks about digital business reporting and XBRL.

In the document, Digital Financial Reporting: Facilitating digital comparability and analysis of financial reports; in the section "What is needed to realise the benefits of digital financial reporting?" the IFRS Foundation provides four points for users of financial reports to realize the full benefits of XBRL-based reporting:

  • be a complete and accurate representation of reported information;
  • be structured in a digitally comparable format; 
  • be publicly available at the same time as reported information; and
  • be centrally accessible in an easy-to-use format.

In that same section the IFRS Foundation has a call to action:

Over the past 10 or 15 years, some accountants have built up a proficiency in constructing rather poor XBRL taxonomies and XBRL-based reports that have far, far too many quality issues (i.e. errors).  That really needs to be fixed, and it will be fixed over time.  Perhaps this might take 5, 10, maybe 25 years; but it will be fixed.

What accountants new to XBRL-based reporting do not want to do is repeat the same mistakes as the early adopters of XBRL-based reporting.  Rather; learn from those mistakes and avoid making those same mistakes.

Early on, I make the same mistakes that others made.  But what I did differently was to figure out that I was making a mistake and I struggled to fix my processes and avoid those mistakes.  This struggle led me to the creation of what I call the Seattle Method which offers guidance on how to create high-quality XBRL-based digital financial reports.

Over the past 20 years, I have kept what amounts to a "lab notebook" of my work. The information is not particularly well organized; but I will fix that.  A first attempt is to try and put the information into helpful buckets.  Here is a first pass at those buckets and specific resources that might be helpful to other accountants trying to wrap their head around digital financial reporting and digital business reporting:

Fundamental Awareness (basic knowledge, literacy)

Novice (limited experience, literacy)

Intermediate (practical application, fluency)

Advanced (applied theory, mastery)

Expert (recognized authority, mastery)

Eventually, I will organize this into somewhat of a "skills framework".

Additional information:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Relational Knowledge Graph System (RKGS)

Image
Relational Knowledge Graph System (RKGS) is an interesting idea that combines the relational paradigm and the knowledge graph paradigm.  This documentation, Why RKGS , explains the idea. This gets even more interesting with the notion of "relational AI".  RelationalAI is described as follows by the company of the same name, Relational.ai : “RelationalAI is a cloud-based relational knowledge graph management system, with state of the art probabilistic processing and declarative reasoning at scale to make developing Data Applications a superpower for your business.” This notion of knowledge graphs represented in relational databases fits into my belief that knowledge graphs have two aspects: the expression SYNTAX and the logic of what is expressed or SEMANTICS. While the LOGIC of a knowledge graph is always the same regardless of technical syntax used to express that logic; there are many, many different technical syntaxes that can be used to represent a knowledge graph. There
Read more

Getting Started with Auditchain Luca

Image
(Note that a newer, production version as opposed to only the development version , of Luca Suite is available) The Innovator's Dilemma points out that disruptive innovations often look like toys that are doing everything wrong. Auditchain Luca , which is part of the Auditchain Suite , is a unique approach to creating a knowledge graph .  To experience using Auditchain Luca, have a look at the Getting Started with Auditchain Luca instructions. Be sure to grab the Excel and JSON import files used for this getting started exercise.   This getting started exercise uses one of several different approaches to getting information into a tool for constructing and viewing professional quality knowledge graphs .  Additional getting started guides will be made available over time. Auditchain Luca might not make sense to you if you don't understand the paradigm shift that is occurring and if you have not shifted your mental map. For the next step in your journey, consider trying creat
Read more

Evaluating the Quality of XBRL-based Financial Reports

Image
From the time public companies started submitting XBRL-based financial reports to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, I have been looking at those reports, trying to understand the XBRL-based reports, and trying to figure out how to get them right.  That information was used to figure out how to create software applications that help professional accountants get these reports right. Here is information that summarizes my testing and results which I stopped doing March 31, 2019: Analysis of the high level accounting relationships in the 10-Ks of about 5,716 financial reports  (5,063 public companies, about 89.1% got all these high level accounting relationships consistent with expectation, 623 were inconsistent and manual confirmation revealed the inconsistency was an error) Documentation that helps you understand 26 different types of errors in XBRL-based reports High quality documentation of hundreds of errors in XBRL-based reports submitted by public companies to the SEC Doc
Read more