Reporting systems can provide transparency into financial markets necessary for a sustainable, prosperous global economy. The most widely used global platform for exchanging electronic information about companies to regulatory bodies is XBRL. Standards for this platform are in the process of becoming legally harmonized, but not all countries are mandating e-business reporting. A harmonized global standard for business reporting aligns practices between countries, while recognizing the need for flexibility within each social system and government, whereas international law would establish one standard for all. The research shows that goal of creating transparent global financial information in aggregate searchable form for the public remains elusive under the harmonized approach. The research explores the standardization process at the country level using a grounded theory approach in the G20 countries. The problem of a not having a global standard is framed in the financial reporting dimensions of Law, Accounting Standards, Information Standards, and Assurance Standards, which are existing standards integral to creating high quality transparent financial information. The dimensions exist to some extent in each country, and are in process of being harmonized. The research shows that current legal mandates for the XBRL standard impact the number of firms filing in XBRL to regulators. However, problems with data quality and data assurance have not been addressed with the current legislative initiatives. There is supply of data, but no public demand due to quality issues. There are three levels in the process where data alignment is needed for interoperability: taxonomy use must be consistent, taxonomy structure must be the same, and agreed upon minimum content must be useful for analysis. Currently, data sets between countries are not interoperable or comparable for aggregation due to local adoptions of XBRL taxonomies. Legal mandates alone have not produced quality electronic financial information. Additionally, accounting and assurance standards are not completely aligned. The contributions of this paper provide an understanding of how global standards are being harmonized in the G20 countries based on the common value of financial information transparency in e-business reporting.

Philosophiae Doctor - PhD / Higher education institutions in South Africa have invested heavily in information technology and information systems, with variable outcomes. Organisations in other sectors, such as engineering, the defence industry, public administration and business, have developed and adopted standards and guides to good practice for the development and operation of software-based systems. In the history of standards-making there was an early vision of the need to extend standardisation beyond software engineering into the world that acquires and uses systems, and yet the overall scope of available standards is still limited. Seeing slow progress in the international committees that develop nationally-endorsed standards (such as ISO-IEC/JTC1/SC7) practitioner communities moved to develop good practice guides such as COBIT and ITIL, that have found considerable interest in progressive organisations. Hence a range of potential guidance is available. In order to assess the extent to which standards and good practice guides might assist higher education, the four tertiary institutions in the Western Cape were approached and a representative range of academic, administrative and managerial individuals agreed to contribute to the study as respondents. Interviews were organised in two parts: the first an open conversation about their involvement with systems, and the second a structured examination of systems-related events that they considered significant. By inspection of those events, bipolar scales were developed by which respondents were able to characterise events (for example as ‘challenging’ or ‘easy’, or as ‘functional’ or ‘dysfunctional’). Respondents rated events on those scales. Repertory Grid analysis was applied so as to investigate which scales correlated with event success. 30 scales (out of 170) proved to be adequately correlated with success, and by principal component analysis they were combined to form nine ‘success scale’ groups, indicating nine areas where the deployment of standards or good practice guides might be expected to lead to more effective use of improved information systems. The study adopted an abductive approach to the work, keeping open the question of what might be the contribution to knowledge. In the event, a new Reference Model emerged from the data analysis that contributes to the effective choice and management of standards and good practice guides .A review of available standards and good practice guides using the new Reference Model concludes that the good practice guides are more applicable than the internationally developed standards, and in some areas management models and frameworks have a contribution to make. The utility of standards, good practice guides and management models will depend on the circumstances and context of use, which are extremely variable. A portfolio approach to the management of information systems provides a means to deal with that variability. It is further found that the IMBOK1 can be used to assess the linkages between information technology, information systems, business processes, business benefits and business strategy. The new Reference Model has a role to play in resolving the need for standards in the four junctions between those five IMBOK domains. Selected standards are assessed in that way, and an illustrative commentary is provided showing how projects and other systems-related initiatives can be assessed using the new Reference Model and the IMBOK. / Carnegie Corporation of New York

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Reducing medical error remains in the forefront of healthcare reform. The use of health information technology, specifically the electronic health record (EHR) is one attempt to improve patient safety. The implementation of the EHR in the Emergency Department changes physician workflow, which can have negative, unintended consequences for patient safety. Inaccuracies in clinical documentation can contribute, for example, to medical error during transitions of care. In this quasi-experimental comparison study, we sought to determine whether there is a difference in document quality, error rate, error type, cognitive load and time when Emergency Medicine (EM) residents use paper charts versus the EHR to complete physician documentation of clinical encounters. Simulated patient encounters provided a unique and innovative environment to evaluate EM physician documentation. Analysis focused on examining documentation quality and real-time observation of the simulated encounter. Results demonstrate no change in document quality, no change in cognitive load, and no change in error rate between electronic and paper charts. There was a 46% increase in the time required to complete the charting task when using the EHR. Physician workflow changes from partial documentation during the patient encounter with paper charts to complete documentation after the encounter with electronic charts. Documentation quality overall was poor with an average of 36% of required elements missing which did not improve during residency training. The extra time required for the charting task using the EHR potentially increases patient waiting times as well as clinician dissatisfaction and burnout, yet it has little impact on the quality of physician documentation. Better strategies and support for documentation are needed as providers adopt and use EHR systems to change the practice of medicine.