FINAL REPORT AD1016 - TELER TELematics for Enterprise ... · PDF fileAD1016 TELER Deliverable...

FINAL REPORT

AD1016 - TELER

TELematics for Enterprise Reporting

CESIA

TELEMATICS APPLICATIONS PROGRAMME(Administration)

Authors: Philippe Caille, Louis-Aimé de Fouquières, Hans Stol

TELER

27/05/99

Version 6 (td8cep07.doc)

AD1016 TELER Deliverable 08Final Report

AD1016 TELERTELematics for Enterprise Reporting

LOWERING THE BURDEN

ENTAILED BY ENTERPRISES'

DATA COLLECTION

The TELER projectproved that three kindsof solutions result inconsiderable reductionof costs for the enter-prises in their efforts foranswering questions ofgovernmental collec-tors. The solutions fea-ture an automated ex-traction from the enter-prise’s computerisedinformation systems, complemented where necessary by manual data capture. This extractionenables to automatically fill in various questionnaires and send them to data collectors, or tofeed a data repository, BISE, used for subsequent extraction of various data collectors.

Setting the Scene

The TELER project aimedat lowering the adminis-trative burden on enter-prises caused by data col-lection of governmentalinstitutes, which costsEurope over 0.6% of itsGNP. Basically, softwaremodules extract dataitems from enterprisecomputerised informationsystems, from which therequested variables arecomputed automatically.This seemingly simpleapproach had first to copewith an amazing com-plexity of situations ofdata reporting. Much hadbeen done for the devel-opment of «electronic

questionnaires» before,but TELER was moreambitious: to drasticallycut the burden of formfilling.

Approach

The consortium consistedof two types of partners:the NSI’s representing thedata collectors, EURO-FER and EDIFICAS rep-resenting the intermedi-aries collecting and dis-seminating data on behalfof the enterprises. Tocover the variety of re-porting situations, it wasdecided to develop threevariants. After a commoninvestigation of the userrequirements a conceptualmodel was designed as a

basic structure for thesevariants. The three dem-onstrators have basicallythe same functions (ex-tract, transform data, for-mat output file onto anEDIFACT message, en-crypt and send file) butwith specific features tomeet specific needs.

Results and Achieve-ments

The three variants weredeveloped and evaluatedusing common references.The software module(EDISENT) developed bythe NSIs has been demon-strated at more than 70enterprises, 3 accountingfirms and by 9 data col-lectors in SE, FI, DE, NL,

Request

ResponseAutomatedinformation

systems

IntermediaryStorage

BISE

Bu

ildin

g

Ext

ract

ion

Respondent Collector

TransactionDocuments

Direct extractionData item Variable


ES, PT, IT and SI. Be-sides the software proto-type itself, detailed speci-fications and a «trial kit»are available and free forthe market. The solutionof EDIFICAS has beendeveloped and demon-strated in France, involv-ing two accounting firmsand two data collectors.The prototype, developedas a module integratedinto an accounting pack-age, is operational. Thespecifications are avail-able and free for the mar-ket. The EUROFER vari-ant was developed anddemonstrated in France;the prototype is also ap-plicable in other coun-tries. The specificationsare available and free forthe market.

The trials proved that (i)the concept developed byTELER led to viable so-lutions, whether directlyor via intermediaries; (ii)these solutions yield sav-ings of up to 90% of theadministrative burden onenterprises and intermedi-ary organisations; (iii)standardisation of meta-data (i.e. the meaning ofdata) used by the respon-dents is not necessary, butmay ease the process; (iv)standardisation of meta-data used by the data col-lectors is favourable forthe process; (v) the situa-tion concerning standardi-sation of metadata varieswith the EU countries.

Conclusions and Plansfor the Future

EDISENT proved to workin all kind of situations:countries with and with-out standardisation on theside of the data collectorsor the respondents. Thesolution of the profes-sional organisation andthe module integrated inthe accounting packagewere both demonstrated ina country with a highlevel of standardisation onboth sides. More researchis needed to create a clearEuropean market for thesoftware developers andservice providers.EDISENT will be used inall 8 countries involved sofar. Current calculationsshow that the total costsavings for the Europeanbusiness society will ex-ceed 50 million Euroduring the next three yearsas a result of these ex-ploitation plans. StatisticsNetherlands will exploitthe EDISENT module andprovide services to theother NSIs. The chain ofsoftware packages built byEUROFER will be ex-ploited in FR, UK andpartially in DE.EUROFER will furtherpromote the concept inthe EU, and its memberswill provide services toexploit the results in otherprofessional organisa-tions. EDIFICAS willcontinue the promotion ofthe concept among theaccounting society in EU.

Contact Details

Project Name:TELER – TELematics for Enterprise Reporting

Research Area:Automation of data exchanges between busi-nesses and Government.

Timescale:01.01.96 - 31.03.99

Budget:Overall cost: 5 260 400 EuroE.C. contribution: 2 499 800 Euro

Keywords:Accounting firm, Administrativeburden, B2A, Business, Data collec-tors, EDI, Electronic questionnaire,Enterprise, Metadata, Online feed-back,Professional organisation,Reporting, Repository, Statisticalvariables,SMEs, Surveys, Telemat-ics

Key Project Participants:CESIA (FR)Statistics Netherlands (NL)Cap Gemini (NL)INE (Statistics Portugal) (PT)SCB (Statistics Sweden) (SE)Statistics Finland (FI)StBA (DE)LDS NordRhein-Westfalen (DE)LDS Brandenburg (DE)ISTAT (IT)EUROFER (LU)EDIFICAS / Europe (BE)EDIFICAS / France (FR)Datacare (IE)

Project Co-ordinator:Louis-Aimé de FouquièresTel: +33 1 44 49 69 49Fax: + 33 1 45 66 99 49E-mail: [email protected] Co-ordinator: Hans StolE-mail: [email protected]: Kees Jan MetzTel: + 31 70 33 75 072Fax: + 31 70 33 75 973E-mail: [email protected] URL:http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/eurostat/ re-search/dosis/teler/

mailto:[email protected]



FINAL REPORT

Table of content

Part I Executive Summary

Part II Final Report

1. Setting the scene 5

2. Approach 7

3. Results and Achievements 12

4. Conclusions and Plans for the Future 26

5. Contact points 29

Appendices (In separate cover)

Appendix A - Cover pages from deliverables D01 to D07

Appendix B - Information dissemination materials


1. SETTING THE SCENE

a Background

European enterprises are requested to submit more and more information by public admini-strations, among which National Statistical Institutes, or NSIs, for statistical surveys —which results in heavy workloads laid down on enterprises for administrative form filling.Enterprises will not tolerate such a situation for long, neither will government administrations.

The TELER project aims at lowering the administrative burden of enterprises, espe-cially in the field of statistical business surveys and improving the work of national sta-tistical services and other collectors of statistical data, by using EDI related technologiesin combination with the existing European telematics infrastructure.

b The challenge

As far as technologies are concerned, the solution seems quite simple: a software interfaceshould perform three tasks: (i) direct extraction of relevant data from enterprises computerisedinformation systems (which include not only the accounting system, but also the invoicingsystem, payroll, etc.) (ii) calculation of the variables requested, using the data extracted and(iii) submission of the formatted file to the recipient data collector(s).

c Problems to be solved

Most enterprises store their business data in their own computerised information system or attheir accountant's. Those data are primarily used for enterprise management, not for surveys.So they generally do not map onto the answers which are expected by data collectors. How-ever, each answer to a question in a survey (called a variable) is most often the result of com-putations on data items that are directly accessible in the enterprise's computerised informa-tion system. The problem is to find efficient ways to transform enterprise's data into question-naire's variables. The problem of transforming the data has to be solved in different environ-ments. Three of them have been experienced in TELER. The three driving forces behind theTELER concept, each with their own challenges, are:

1. The National Statistical Institutes getting more and more complaints from the enterprisesabout the burdensome filling in of the questionnaires and thus wanting to minimise thisburden.

2. EDIFICAS, acting as the European representative for EDI issues of the accounting profes-sion, wanting to explore the IT-technology to help the accounting offices in reducing theadministrative burden on the enterprises (for which they keep the books).

3. EUROFER, the European professional organisation of the Steel industry, aiming at ex-ploring more efficient ways for its members to fulfil their reporting tasks and by doing soalleviate the burden on enterprises (they collect raw data from enterprises and respond toenquiries on their behalf).

Whereas the NSIs – co-ordinated by Statistics Netherlands – can be seen as one of the datacollectors that causes the administrative burden on enterprises, the other two driving forcesare representing intermediaries in charge of taking care of the administrative obligations of the


enterprises with respect to the (governmental) data collectors. The accounting firm representsin practice enterprises and can be seen as an intermediary between the enterprises and datacollectors (of course besides the other services it provides). It takes over a part of the burdenof the enterprises and bills them for the corresponding effort. A more efficient process at theaccounting firm results in a cheaper service for the enterprise. The same holds for the profes-sional organisation. It offers services to its members (enterprises in the same sector of indus-try) among which taking over the administrative actions to fulfil the obligations on the datacollectors. Enterprises benefit from a more efficient process at the professional organisationby getting additional services (like information feedback) and lower membership fees.

d Where we started

The challenge has been well known for many years, but so far the main response was theelectronic questionnaire: this is an electronic form (spreadsheet or other) which is filled in bythe company using a PC, almost just as a typewriter, and sent by various means (from floppydisks to the Internet, maybe using the so-called EDI-light) to the data collector. If this e-questionnaire is a promising alternative for data collectors since it transfers the burden of dataentry onto the company, it brings no evident gain to the enterprise. What we were looking foris more ambitious: the intelligent questionnaire that automatically finds the relevant data itemsand computes the variables to be submitted. Before TELER much effort has been spent on thedevelopment of electronic questionnaires and the use of IT in data collection in general. Notso much has been achieved yet in the automation of the data capture process itself. Theknowledge that most of the data to be collected by the governmental institutes should bestored in some way in the automated information systems of the enterprises and/or in theautomated information systems of intermediary organisations had not been translated intopractical IT-solutions so far.

e Structure of the project and structure of the TELER consortium

The project was divided in three subprojects, with the following key partners:

– The national statistical institutes of the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Italy andPortugal1, assisted by Cap Gemini, a European software house (the other EU statistical in-stitutes periodically reviewed the achievements within a User Group);

– The European association for EDI usage in accounting and audit EDIFICAS, its Frenchmember and Datacare, an Irish software house;

– The European organisation of the Iron and Steel industry, EUROFER and its French, Brit-ish and German members.

Consortium members were structured in two sub-groups: the statistical institutes on the onehand, co-ordinated by Statistics Netherlands, and business intermediary organisations on theother hand (including accounting profession and professional organisations), co-ordinated byCESIA, a French consulting group. The overall co-ordination and project management wasentrusted to CESIA.

1 In the first phase of the project the statistical institutes of Greece, Spain and UK have contributed information on user requirements andbookkeeping practices. The statistical institute of Spain has been co-operating closely in the whole project, on a voluntary basis. The statis-tical institute of France has been involved in the activities of EDIFICAS for variant 2. In later phases, the institutes of Spain and Sloveniahave participated in the trials on a voluntary, non-subsidised basis.


2. APPROACH

2.1 THE CONCEPT

a Outline of the concept

R e q u e s t

R e s p o n s eA u to m a te din fo r m a t io n

s y s te m s

In te r m e d ia r yS to r a g e

B IS E

Bu

ild

ing

Ex

tra

cti

on

R e s p o n d e n t C o lle c to r

T r a n s a c t io nD o c u m e n ts

D ir e c t e x tr a c t io nD a ta i te m V a r ia b le

Figure 2-1: TELER concept

The overall concept of the TELER project, in which all variants fit, is represented in the figureabove. The enterprise keeps the source of all information as paper transaction documents (in-voices, etc.), whereas part of this information is synthesised and stored in computerised in-formation systems. A software agent extracts all necessary information from the automatedinformation system (and if this is not enough, transaction documents must be drawn upon).When the data of the enterprise are submitted to the data collector via an intermediary organi-sation, or when they are volatile, storing them into a database will generally be required. Thisdatabase is called BISE (Base d’Informations Statistiques de l’Entreprise or Enterprise Statis-tical Information Database). The data stored in the database are not statistical data, but justdata on the enterprise, aggregated at an adequate level. The data required by one or severaldata collectors can be selected in a flexible way from the database. The construction of anactual BISE at the enterprise is not imperative if the data collector collects variables that arederived from on-line data once only. But BISE enables to store information that will be usedin the future to answer administrative requests, even when the initial information has beenremoved from the information system; it is a buffer that authorises asynchronous exchanges(from this point of view, it is close to a data warehouse).

b Metadata

In order to collect the data automatically from the automated systems one has to overcome theproblem of having data with similar names but different meanings at the enterprise's and at thecollector's. The TELER project uses the term metadata in this sense: it is a standard descrip-tion of the meaning of the data, whether stored in an enterprise's computerised informationsystem or expected at a data collector's. The whole procedure consists in matching the meta-


data that describe the «conceptual world of the respondent» with the metadata that describethe «conceptual world of the data collector».

The easiest way is to include in the (standard) accounting software a general code structure forthe chart of accounts and other template(s) representing the metadata generally used by thedata collectors. When using standardised transformation rules, the administrative burden fordata items that are automatically stored can be brought close to nil!

Unfortunately – in general – neither the metadata at the respondents nor at the data collectorsare standardised. This means that:

• the same terms sometimes are used with different meanings,

• the chart of accounts of the financial information systems used by the enterprise differsfrom one enterprise to the other,

• the data asked for by governmental agencies are not harmonised,

• etc.

Responding unit

Respondent

Requesting unit

Data collector

METADATA METADATA

Figure 2-2: metadata

The issue of standards is important as these are difficult to implement at the present stage:there is no standardised system for metadata and research is currently carried out on thistopic2. Standard definitions of variables, whatever the data collector and the Member State,are not available3 either. Commonly used nomenclatures would be very welcome, but they arestill missing.

Despite these difficulties, the interest of the overall concept is twofold: it ensures consistencyamong various solutions adopted as long as they are based on the concept; it also provides aclear picture of the situations that are covered by each solution.

2 e.g. SupCom 1997

3 Research is currently carried out on the so-called Business Semantic Register


2.2 PROJECT PROCESS

The diversity of situations of administrative reporting mentioned above obliged to find spe-cific alternatives while ensuring consistency across the project. The specificity was taken intoaccount by the development of three variants (or sub-projects): variant 1 led by the statisticalinstitutes, variant 2 led by EDIFICAS (association of accountants' organisation) and variant 3led by EUROFER (professional organisation of the iron and steel industry). Common (cross-project) work packages were set up at the beginning and at the end of the project and variant-specific work packages were used in the middle of the project. The emphasis of the work car-ried out during the demonstrations by the three driving forces was respectively put on:

1. Providing enterprises and accounting firms with a software package enabling the auto-mated extraction of variables required by the data collectors – especially being NSIs – andsending them subsequently by EDI.

2. Providing accounting firms with modules added to their standard accounting softwarepackages in order to ease the (standardised) production of variables for the data collectorsout of the information system kept by the accounting firms on behalf of their clients.

3. Providing professional organisations with a «building blocks» process, exclusively basedupon EDI and off-the-shelf software (to be affordable for SMEs), to collect and store ho-mogenised enterprise data into a database, accessible online by enterprises for feedbackanalysis and able to produce questionnaires to be sent by EDI to data collectors.

The following table summarises the process during project life and gives indications on workdone in common and work packages done variant by variant.

Table 1: TELER work packages and deliverables

Common workpackages

Variant-specificwork packages

Deliverables

Overall management (WP1)

Dissemination (WP2)

Background and user needs (WP3) D01 Background and user needs

Data modelling (WP10) System specifications and development(WP4, WP5, WP6)

D02

D03

Data model

Global specifications

System specifications and development(WP4, WP5, WP6)

D04

D05

Detailed specifications

Building demonstrator andverification

Trials and evaluation (WP7, WP8, WP9) D06 Trials and evaluation

Exploitation planning (WP11) D07 Exploitation plan

The demonstrations were carried out and evaluated separately; cross-project evaluations werefinally made.


2.3 DEMONSTRATIONS AND EVALUATION

The preparation of the trials and the evaluation methodology were elaborated within the de-tailed specifications phase. Detailed evaluation guidelines were developed and used during thetrials. Evaluation criteria common to the three variants were chosen, and of course criteriamatching specific characteristics of each variant were also considered. In the case of the NSIvariant, which involved the translation and adaptation of a software prototype in 8 countries,the activities during the trials themselves were duly documented, following a checklist format.

The trial and evaluation phase took one year, from April 1998 to March 1999. Each demon-stration was evaluated by each organisation participating in the trial, i.e.: the enterprise, thedata collector, the intermediary body (accounting firm or professional association), the soft-ware house. The evaluation was conducted primarily through interviews, with interviewguidelines. The evaluation of cost savings, in particular at enterprises, has been done in termsof manpower rather than in financial terms. An attempt can be made by multiplying the effortby the hourly cost, depending on the category of staff.

The items evaluated were as follows:

• Characteristics of the enterprise (sector, size, etc.)

• Attitude and motivation

• Cost of introducing the new reporting method (training, reading documentation)

• Installation of software module necessary for the variant

• Figures on enterprise information systems, sub-systems, data items involved

• Evaluation of manpower required for each phase of the operation of the variant

• Evaluation of the progress made when operating the variant a second time, a third time,etc.

• Summary of experiences at the end of trial

• Cost comparison

• Expectations and opinions.

The following table summarises the trials and shows some characteristics of the demonstratedsoftware of the three variants.


Table 2: TELER trials by variant

Variant 1 Variant 2 Variant 3

Demonstrated in 8 countries73 enterprises3 accounting firms

1 country2 accounting firms

1 country1 professional organisation2 enterprises (feedback)

Standard in metadata at re-spondent necessary

No Yes No

Standard in metadata at datacollectors necessary

No No No

Permanent storage of data(BISE) necessary/possible

Possible Necessary Necessary

EDIFACT used Yes (RDRMES) Yes (INFENT) No (STADIUM)

(RDRMES foreseen, buttemporarily refused by datacollectors)

Dependency of successfulimplementation

Creation of ASCII file Availability of standard ac-counting package

Use of available standardsoftware

Additional remarks In seven countries, one datacollector was involved,in one country, two.

Data on 3-10 enterprises wereinvolved in the trials of theaccounting firms.

Implementation in progress infive countries.

Two data collectors wereinvolved.

Data on 50 enterprises wereinvolved in the trials.

Two data collectors wereinvolved.

Data on 43 enterprises wereinvolved in the trials.

Implementation in progress intwo countries / twoprofessional organisations

In variant 1 (EDISENT implemented in the enterprise) the costs seem to be strongly reduced,as compared to the paper-and-pencil procedure. A direct measure of this cost reduction wasdifficult to make, as the familiarisation with EDISENT was obviously time consuming, whichwill not be the case for future use. The calculated 85% cost savings for the enterprise can beachieved under the following conditions: (i) The questionnaire will be renewed completelyafter 5 years, not before. (ii) Once a year an average of 10% of the questions changes. (iii) Nochanges are made in the structure of the ASCII export file that is being used as report file.

As for the EDIFICAS (accountants) variant, the cost computation shows that, assuming thatthe module cost is spread over 50 firm for 5 years, for 3 average forms, the costs will be re-duced from 221 Euro down to 36 Euro. A saving of 83% for the costs of the accounting firm.

The EUROFER variant shows a strong reduction of the burden for the professional organisa-tion. The use of an NT server and PC network, of automation and a versatile and simple querytool and of EDI for transmission, generated important cost reductions: (i) 70% for the hard-ware and software and over 40% on IT personnel. (ii) The need to check and harmonise thedata was cut from 15 days to 5 days (66%). (iii) The new IT solution offered the enterprises anon-line feed back of their figures.


3. RESULTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS

3.1 SPECIFICATION OF DEMONSTRATORS

a Common functions of the demonstrators

Three demonstrators were developed in TELER, in order to meet the variety of user needs.Indeed, they have the same basic following functions:

– extract data from an input file– calculate, derive, transcode data into the requested variables (i. e. apply transformation

rules in order to get an output file)– format the output file into an EDIFACT message (RDRMES has finally been retained for

variant 1 against INFENT for variant 2 and STADIUM for variant 3, but proprietary for-mats may also be used when data collectors request so), to make up the answer file

– (encrypt the answer file, if requested)– send the answer file.

The real difference between the three software pieces lies in the management, the positioning,the flexibility and how it is initialised. These differences are spelled out below.

b Specifics of variant 1 (the statistical institutes’ variant)

aveo

NSI

TAXAuth.

Format-ting &

sendingAnswerfile

Computerisedinformation

systems

Report file

Trans-formation

rules

(one timetuning)

FIRM

EDISENT

Figure 3-1: EDISENT

In this variant, the input file is the report file (e.g. print file) of the relevant data record, whichcan be extracted from any type of computerised enterprise information sub-system. This dem-onstrator, named EDISENT, is thus compatible with any enterprise information system,whether off-the-shelf or bespoke. The structure of the file can be specified interactively by theenterprise (for example «domestic sales of the month of January is in position 3 and has thelength of 2 positions»). In the same vein, the questionnaire is described by the data collector


who gives names along with comments (for example «sales for the year, including domesticsales and exports»). The derivation rules are then written by the enterprise (for example «salesfor the year = ∑ domestic sales over 12 months + ∑ exports over 12 months»). EDISENTprovides the enterprise with a module that makes this task much easier: this must be doneonce and for all, whereas with previous methods, the calculations had to be made each monthor year.

EDISENT also features a lot of auxiliary functions, for example the manual entry of furtherinformation that is required but is not available in the enterprise information system (name ofthe company, particular events during the period, etc.).

Another important function is the possibility to create the intermediary repository, BISE,whose interest is to de-synchronise the preparation of output files and their sending. In anycase, it is finally up to the enterprise to decide if and when the output file may be submitted tothe data collector.

c Transmission software modules

The described modules are used in EDISENT, and could be used in Variant 3 too. As suchthey use FTP for transmission over the Internet (but other protocols can be used, on the con-dition that the data collector interfaces its own software to this module). They also carry outthe mapping to RDRMES (the standard format for raw data), as an option.

Trans-lationinto

EDIFACTdoc

Acknowlegdement

Messagedestina-

tion

Responsedocument

Input doc,mapping ,structure

Trans-lationintoEDI

message

Statusreport

En-cryption

Trans-mission

Docstructure

Pollingmailbox

De-cryption

Datacollector’sprocessingprogram

ENTERPRISE DATA COLLECTOR

Trans-lationinto

EDIFACTdoc

Figure 3-2: Transmission modules

There are two modules, one at the respondent side (enterprise) and one at the data collector.At the enterprise side, a maintenance interface allows the user to configure the settings and acommand-line interface allows the access to the modules supplied by third party applications,such as a module for encryption or a client e-mail software for data transfer. On the data col-lector side, the module consists of two parts: one to poll the directory / mailbox in which theEDI messages are received while the second part behaves like a mirror image of the enter-prise-based module and features the same two interfaces. The function of the second part is todecrypt the EDI messages and translate them back into EDIFACT documents. Acknowledge-ments are then created and passed back to the data communication module.


d Specifics of variant 2 (EDIFICAS’ variant)

In this approach, the software is integrated in an accounting software package. There is there-fore no need to describe the input file, which is automatically done by the software. The de-scription of the questionnaire is carried out by the software editor, according to the specifica-tions given by the data collector. As compared to variant 1, the workload of the respondent isreduced but replaced with a subscription paid to the software editor, who acts as a value addedoperator. This assumes that data collectors are ready to send their questionnaires under theshape of a series of variables and comments, using precise standard descriptions that can beunderstood by software editors in the country.

These precise descriptions are used by the software editor to build up the derivation rules,which indeed raises the question of the understanding of concepts. The chart of accounts, inthe countries where it is prescribed by law, is the basis of concepts and of their mutual rela-tionships. But even in those countries, in some industries the chart of accounts is refined bythe enterprise for its own needs, which again raises the issues of a common reference nomen-clature. Moreover not all the variables requested are available in accounts: for example, the«sales by type of product» requires to keep books or management accounts by product andtherefore requires a common nomenclature of products.

aveo

ave eoi aopiuaeoi a epoizero

ae aprozaer az pcowxae ar ez zer zer

1212345

3334534

ZEROU ZEROIU

FIRM

Metadata

Accounts

PeSIT

NSI

Taxautho-

rity

Extrac-tion &

transformation

Trans-lator

NETWORK

TEDECOAnswer

fileIntermediary

file

ACCOUNTING FIRM RELAY CENTRE

Figure 3-3: EDIFICAS’ variant

The test, carried out in TELER, was based in France where such a chart of account exists. Itcan be adapted to other countries on the condition that a common code list is chosen, whichwill be the common language between data collectors and software editors.

As shown in the diagram above, in the French case, the system is somewhat more complex asinformation is not directly sent to the final recipient government administration, but uses achartered relay centre that carries out a part of the task of formatting the file, with differentformats depending on the requests of the recipients. Obviously, this specific feature is not acondition for extending the case to other countries. But it may exemplify the interest of relaycentres (or value added operators) that format files and use protocols just as requested byvarious government agencies. This indeed would lower the burden implied by the many pro-tocols and formats handled at enterprise level. But it would not be free of charge.


e Specifics of variant 3 (EUROFER’s variant)

This variant demonstrates the possibility to reconcile standardisation with flexibility in use. Anumber of national professional organisations collect information from their members for thepurpose of disseminating enriched information back to the industry. Depending on countries,the information is received from member companies on floppies or by data communications(in some cases, from small companies, on paper). The formats of the files received (the inputfile for the professional organisation) and their coding system are decided by the enterprises:software, protocols, message structures, networks can differ. There is therefore a need for re-structuring all incoming files into a common format and for transcoding. The first link of thesoftware chain consists in a knowledge-based system (AION-DS) capable of restructuring andtranscoding the input files. This is done once and for all by the professional organisation, inaccordance with the enterprise. When the structure is subsequently modified by the enterprise,the package detects any fault and helps with the modification of related extraction or deriva-tion rules (for example, it can add a new product to the database of existing products). Theworkload is thus effectively reduced for the professional organisation and there is no newworkload at the enterprise for data description and derivation rules.

PELICAN

Entrybase,

controls&

standardisation

AION-DS

Online QueryBUSINESS OBJECTS

Tele-trans-

mission

STADIUM& E-mail

NSI

EUROSTAT

Nal ADMIN

Intl ORG

SYBASE IQ

Extrac-tion &report

BUSINESSOBJECTS

aveo aveo

FIRM NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

ave eoi aopiuaeoi a epoizero

ae aprozaer azae ar ez zer zer

12123453334534

ZEROU ZEROIU

Figure 3-4: EUROFER’s variant

This information sent by the enterprise is then used automatically to prepare the forms re-quested by various data collectors, using BUSINESS OBJECTS, a user-friendly package tobuild reports. Particularly user-friendly is the possibility to create, with a single request, allindividual questionnaire returns and their aggregation at various levels, company, area andcountry. The parameters that describe the variables requested are set by the professional or-ganisation and have to be reset each time the questionnaire changes. The whole work is car-ried out by the professional organisation with no supplementary fees charged to the enterprise,which is not even kept informed of how the questionnaire is prepared. Any questionnaire isthus a simple BUSINESS OBJECTS request, which makes the whole system very flexible inits use.

In addition, a further software module (STADIUM – client over INTERNET in this case) isused to format the output file and to submit it to the recipient collectors.


Moreover there is an important value added to the enterprise: information is kept in a database(BISE) which enables easy information feedback, quickly after company’s submission of in-formation. Online queries by enterprises are possible, in the respect of confidentiality rules, atno additional cost, but for a BUSINESS OBJECTS licence or, cheaper, through Web-Intelligence, its Internet version.

3.2 THE PACKAGES PREPARED

a Variant 1

EDISENT has been developed by Statistics Netherlands and Cap Gemini, translated intoseven languages (in Spain the English version was used) and adapted to the surveys in all theeight test countries: SE, FI, DE, NL, ES, PT, IT and SI (Slovenia). The package namedEDISENT Trial Kit includes:

– the software– auxiliary files (a part of which is specific to the surveys tested, with the description of the

variables requested, comments, explanatory notes, and to each respondent)– the user manual– a flexible link to allow each data collector to adapt its own communication protocol.

The transmission part in the software offers the following facilities:

– mapping of the message structure (RDRMES)– encryption / decryption (software not provided)– adding a label to identify the encrypted message at collector’s side– transmission of the message (e.g. using FTP)– creation of status information.

EDISENT can also be used to prepare an intermediary repository, BISE, specific to each re-spondent. The corresponding part of EDISENT enables the respondent to store informationfor some time and thus to prepare various administrative reports to different data collectors.

At the respondent’s side the technical requirement is:

– a PC ≥ 386,– mouse device,– MS WINDOWS ≥ 3.x, 95 or up,– 3 to 4 Mb space disk.

b Variant 2

It calls upon a new module added to an existing set of accounting software packages, which isused by accounting firms to keep the books of their clients (it may include accounting, billing,sales and stock management, pay roll, …). It is based on a common data structure (NGCSF),valid for all data collectors in France. Extraction standard parameters are pre-loaded when theadd-on software tool is delivered. When necessary, upgraded versions are successively added,depending on yearly changes on declaratory forms. The coding list and extraction parametersmay be updated by the accountant if he needs to do so.


At the accounting firm, the required environment is WINDOWS 95 or OS2. Graphic tools arealso used, such as NSDK WINDOWS and C NSDK WINDOWS, DOS ASCII file editor, Pe-SIT and TEDECO protocols for transmission (or corresponding applications for OS2).

At the relay centre, an IBM mainframe is used, with PL1, VTAM and CICS and Transpacfacilities (the French X.25 packet switching network).

c Variant 3

It has assembled a chain of popular off-the-shelf software packages, which have been param-eterised, in order to demonstrate that the role of information broker played by a professionalorganisation can be automated by simple and affordable means. The packages used are onlyexamples for the purpose of the experimentation, other packages could be used.

The software carries out a set of functions, among which:

– standardisation of the received data– data control– transcoding (using and updating reference tables)– processing (using a knowledge-based system)– tables edition– detection and correction of faults.

The BISE Infocentre is then accessed by BUSINESS OBJECTS, an OLAP tool allowing non-expert staff:

– to access the data in their job language, through requests made by mouse clicks,– to make multi-dimensional analysis,– to prepare the requested statistical tables,– to give online and tailored feedback to enterprises, possibly on the Web.

In the trial, the system was designed for receiving, treating and storing data at the micro-datalevel. For this reason, it worked on:

– an NT Server, on which will be installed the core software : POWER AMC (by SYBASE, tomodel data), ADAPTIVE SERVER IQ (by SYBASE, as a DBMS adapted to massive datavolume), AION/DS (by PLATINUM, to harmonise the batches, transcode and control thedata) and AUTOSYS (by PLATINUM, to order and automate tasks),

– and a PC network under Windows 95, with working stations equipped with MS-OFFICEand BUSINESS OBJECTS, and some of them with AION/DS, POWER AMC orSTADIUM-Client (to send ECSC questionnaires by E-mail to EUROSTAT

One must notice that the same process could also work on a PC under Windows 95 as aserver, provided that the receipt and/or the storage were done at the aggregated or semi-aggregated level. In that case, AION/DS could be easily replaced by a simpler software suchas APPLI-MASTER or LA REGLE DU JEU (The Game Rule) and SYBASE ADAPTIVESERVER IQ by SYBASE ADAPTIVE SERVER ENTERPRISE or other DBMS.

A variation of this process has been tested and is being implemented by ISSB Ltd, the Britishmember of EUROFER. It is based on RED BRICK (as a DBMS adapted to smaller volumes,due to the receipt of data already aggregated), MS-VISUAL BASIC (for control rules), MS-OFFICE (for reference tables) and BUSINESS OBJECTS (as a query and reporting tool).


3.3 MAIN CONCLUSIONS OF THE TRIALS

a Variant 1 (NSI)

This variant had been originally planned in six countries with ten enterprises per country. Infour of these countries also one accounting firm was to be selected. The repository function ofthe package (BISE), as well as the coding system proposed by EDIFICAS were scheduled forthe accounting firm's implementation. In one country, the tax administration was also to beinvolved.

Finally, eight countries were involved: two countries, Spain and Slovenia, decided to partici-pate in the project on a voluntary, non-subsidised basis. For various reasons, the number ofparticipating enterprises was not 10 in all countries; in total, 73 enterprises took part in theproject. A number of technical and organisational problems led to have the trials with ac-counting firms in three countries, with a total of three accounting firms.

Whereas the repository function was successfully implemented, it was decided during the de-tailed specification phases not to use the coding system proposed by EDIFICAS. The mainreason was that the structure and the list of values of the present version of this coding systemare applicable in France only. The adaptation to other countries would have required the heavyinvolvement of governmental institutions and standardisation of metadata as it is the case inFrance.

These trials confirm a number of assumptions that were made at the beginning of the project:

1. Most enterprise data needed to return statistical variables requested by the NSI are storedin the enterprise's computerised information subsystems. The trials showed that, for coun-tries having compulsory or de facto standard charts of account, it is recommended to de-fine default data extraction rules.

2. Data available in the enterprises' computerised accounts can easily be translated intostatistical variables. The translation job is fairly easy using extraction rules. Yet effort isrequired from all participants. Data collectors must adapt their questionnaires to a certaindegree, while small enterprises or their accounting firms may have to broaden the scope oftheir information systems to fill certain statistical variables. In some cases, especially foryearly surveys, the design of extraction rules was considered too laborious.

3. Enterprises are willing to send the necessary data directly from their computerised infor-mation systems to the NSIs as data collectors. The evaluation of the enterprises was verypositive as well as their eagerness to join the trials. They expected that (i) the processcould be cost-effective, and that (ii) the transmission protocol ensures confidentiality.

4. Data collectors have appropriate data communication facilities to receive data sent elec-tronically by enterprises. This is true for data collectors, although some technology issueshave to be worked out, e.g. the configuration of tools in an Internet environment.

Moreover, the encouraging results of the trials showed that the NSIs' variant was viable. TheNSIs drew a series of conclusions for future plans, of which the most significant are:


• There are no significant differences in the enterprises' attitude to the concept from onecountry to the other: in all cases, most enterprises expect "any good solution" to lower theburden of answering questionnaires.

• The statistical production process at the NSIs themselves needs to be reconsidered thor-oughly when using tools like EDISENT, in particular the tasks of questionnaire design,taking samples, internal distribution of collected data, monitoring of EDI transmissions.

• The adequate approach for setting up the module in enterprises on a large scale needs to beimproved, in particular because in each enterprise several persons having different skillsare concerned.

• At present, the amount of work to do for adjustment of the EDISENT module can be sub-stantial, in particular for large yearly combi-questionnaires. It is recommended to issuepredefined adjustments that apply to each country's most common situations.

• The ability to perform a number of IT functions, like making export files of using datacommunications systems, is not as common as people might think, at least among enter-prise staff who have to respond to questionnaires. Likewise, the usage of transmissionprotocols and EDI messages is possible under the condition that the complexity is hiddento the user.

Finally, the cost-benefit analysis has been performed at the end of the trials, under the as-sumptions given above. The average time for creating the extraction rule is evaluated to 2.5minutes, and the average time to the data to NSI is evaluated to 10 minutes. This estimationshows that the burden on the enterprises caused by statistical questionnaires can be lowered by85%.

b Variant 2 (EDIFICAS)

Variant 2, led by EDIFICAS, was tested in France at two accounting firms. The trial tookplace in September and October 1998. It included the transmission of data from 50 firms. Thesoftware house CCMx, a major provider of software packages for accountants, was hired byEDIFICAS as software editor and at the same time as relay centre.

The trial covered the transmission of balance sheet and profit and loss statement to INSEE,the French NSI, and to the French tax authority through EDIFACT messages. These transmis-sions comprise a total of 110 responses per enterprise. The message type INFENT was used.The message was prepared and transmitted from the two accounting firms to the relay centre.Then the relay centre built up the transmissions to the data collectors. Both data collectorsacknowledged receipt of the message, and stated they recognised the actual contents.


A summary of the results is collated in the following table.

Table 3: results of variant 2

Topic Accounting firm Software editor / Relaycentre

Tax administration INSEE

Organisation ofthe trials

They wish evolution ofdata transmission facili-ties toward automatedprocedures.

Accounting firms chosenwith respect to:- their commitmenttoward EDI;- clients having to re-

spond to EAE4 survey.

Accounting firms areauthorised to play therole of relay centre onprovision to obtain theagreement.

Direct electronic sendingof information by enter-prise is not envisaged.

Actors' motiva-tion (Win-win)

Important benefits due tounique data capture andform filling in fullyautomated.

Standardisation will notimprove the currentprocedure. However, it isexpected to increase thenumber of data collectorsfrom the same informa-tion

Relay centres or concen-trating actors like ac-countants are a must.Expected benefits ofgeneralised EDI proce-dure are very important.

Relay centre is not thatimportant. Expectedbenefits of EDI proce-dure can be importantmainly with large busi-ness.

Implementationof the trial

Very easy. Installationand hands on procedurewas completed within 30minutes.

Trials have been madeon fiscal year 1998.Development has beenderived rather easilyfrom the existing ac-counting package.

Definitive implementa-tion delayed.

The procedure usingINFENT message isforeseen by September1999

Trial procedure wasdefined. Tests have beenmade for accountingperiod 1997.

Measurementsof the trialprocedure

The total duration of theprocess for one customeris about 10 minutes(average time) from startto ready for sending.

Processing durationduring the trials wassome seconds for 50messages received andtransmitted to data col-lectors

N/A N/A

Further ex-pected devel-opments due tothe trial

Accountants partners inthe trial are expecting astandardised procedure,to be the same for alldata collectors. Less thanthat should not be thatsuccessful.

EDI procedure and toolsis currently developed onrequest of the accountingprofessional body andonly a few enterprises

EDI is already used.Standardisation withEDIFACT is the result ofwillingness of the gov-ernment and commitmentof the Taxation authority.

No real willingness fordevelopment of EDIprocedure. However, it isexpected to become aneed.

4 Enquête Annuelle d'Entreprise, Annual Enterprise Inquiry


Topic Accounting firm Software editor / Relaycentre

Tax administration INSEE

Conclusion ofthe trial

The trials were approved.This can be consideredas the basis of the futureoperational procedure.

The limits of the trialsare due to the perimeterof the project. Generali-sation of EDI form filingneed an important set ofcomplementary tests inorder to define a way forcollecting other informa-tion like minutes ofgeneral assembly meet-ings, report of the audi-tor, ratios, etc.

The migration fromproprietary standard toUN-EDIFACT languagewill not induce importantchanges to the existingprocedure.

Introduction of relaycentre in the procedure isan important change.

Trial should be general-ised by INSEE with largeenterprises.

Informationcoding system

A prerequisite: totaltransparency of codemapping at accountingfirm

Need for co-ordination.Full automation is de-pending on willingnessof all data collectors torecognise a common

metadata code list5

Common code listshould be very efficientbut its organisation willtake time.

A common informationcode list is supposed tobe efficient but has noopinion on the one usedfor the trial.

Additional costsfor softwareadd-on and itsusage

No additional costs forthe clients of the ac-counting firm; such aservice is already pro-vided.

Functions added are:- included in mainte-nance contract if de-claratory process is legal,- billed otherwise.

Costs induced by EDIare compensated by thereduction of collectionorganisation and datacapture.

Costs induced by EDIare compensated by thereduction of collectionorganisation and datacapture.

Extension Willing to extend trial toother data collectionprocedures: VAT, pro-fessional taxation, etc.

Need for awarenesscampaign focusing of thedata collection policy atother data collectors (e.g.commerce courts, banks,social security actors,etc.)

VAT and fiscal returnare planned by March1999.

Will organise and con-tribute to seminars andconferences in the ac-counting professionalsector.

Does not foresee anawareness campaign.

The cost-benefit analysis leads to savings of approximately 83% over five years.

c Variant 3 (EUROFER)

Variant 3 (led by EUROFER), was tested in France, but the software is based on models de-signed in common by EUROFER’s members in the United Kingdom, Germany and Franceand will soon be adapted to the UK. Several stand-alone demonstrations took place from July1998 on. Real transmissions to EUROSTAT, comprising the data of 43 French enterprises,took place from 4 November onwards. Similarly, a questionnaire was transmitted to theFrench administration on 8 January. Two enterprises tried out the online feedback function ofthe variant during the same period, and gave an evaluation interview on 20 March 1999.

The results may be summarised as follows.

5 In France, co-ordination is about to start between the accountant’s professional institute and the major government agencies. The partnersare aiming to set up a future metadata register to be maintained at AFNOR (French Standard organisation) and CEN (European Standardorganisation) and forwarded to ISO (International Standard organisation).


• Professional organisation can play the role of relay centre to collect raw data on behalf ofgovernment data collectors.

• While doing this, they can develop tailored statistics information feedback services to theirmembers.

• The cost of those services remains very reasonable.

In the framework of the trial, the burden at the enterprise has been reduced to almost nil, asthe enterprise has only to transfer a copy of its invoices to the professional association, insteadof filling up questionnaires. Sending pre-aggregated data in place of invoices would supposeto keep at the enterprise a share of the work, but would not strongly reduce the advantage ofthe system, as far as the aggregation treatment can be automated.

The cost savings at the professional association have been evaluated as follows:

• 70% for hardware and software,

• more than 40% for IT professional manpower.

At the same time, the sector statistics are immediately available online to the members of theprofessional organisation.

3.4 CONTRIBUTION TO STANDARDS

There are countries where some standardisation exists for the questions asked by the differentdata collectors; in some countries, a certain standardisation in the chart of accounts is advisedor even prescribed and used in the financial information systems of the enterprises. Indeed,more standardisation in government data and in enterprise accounts will make data extractionseasier to automate. Standardisation, at least at country level, is thus vital for the emergence ofa market.

As far as the standardisation of the metadata is concerned the following differences betweenthe countries are found during the project.

Table 4: metadata standardisation in Europe

FR NL IT DE SE FI PT ES UK SI

Standardised chart of accounts Y N N N N N Y Y N Y

De facto standard chart of accounts - N N N Y - - - N -

Standardised metadata used by data collectors P N N N P P N N N P

Explanation: Y means yes, N is no and P is partly. For Sweden (SE) the indication «P» refersto the role of secondary EDI, for Finland (FI) it means that metadata is often defined by otherauthorities, for France it reflects the on-going efforts towards metadata standardisation.

Obviously, it is much easier to set up interfaces where law prescribes charts of accounts ratherthan where each enterprise (or software publisher) uses its own chart, on the condition that theconcepts used by public data collectors are expressed in terms of these concepts. Compulsory


charts of account and «officialised» nomenclatures are far from widespread in Europe; butalternative solutions lie in the de facto standards set by software publishers. In other domains,such as production, exporting enterprises universally uses the customs nomenclature at leastand mapping tables can be used to communicate with other nomenclatures.

As for the transmission and message protocols, TELER has used the standards that wereavailable during its lifespan, in particular the EDI messages RDRMES and INFENT. Thosemessages became UNSMs at the end of 1997, i.e. almost two years after the project's com-mencement.

3.5 MAIN CONCLUSIONS OF THE TECHNICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

a The complexity of business to government data exchanges

As stressed earlier, the exchanges of data between businesses and governments (be they forstatistical, fiscal, social or other purposes) are very complex and often based on law. Laws andregulations keep changing in all member states and are particularly difficult to harmonisethrough the European Union. Most data are exchanged to check that laws are enforced, to cal-culate fiscal or social contributions from enterprises; statistics are most often only a by-product of these data. The set of laws and their environment (for example statistical systemsin the member states, the approach to legal simplifications, etc.) have thus a double character-istic: they build up an open system, as the scope of data changes every year and is extendedpermanently; but the system is also closed as it strictly still works within national boundaries.This raises a double hurdle, because given the state of the art of technologies, automation re-quires some kind of stability and closed systems; and because the capacity for the market totake over new procedures and software requires a sizeable demand (i.e. a seamless Europeanmarket, beyond national boundaries) and therefore harmonised needs.

This situation unfavourably compares to business to business data exchanges (electronic busi-ness), whose development is much more rapid, owing to more stability in the data exchangedand to less importance of national barriers for private enterprises.

Great benefits could be obtained if electronic business could contribute to drive the develop-ment of business to government exchanges, as those enterprises that are already committed toelectronic business could invest in electronic administration much more willingly and easily.But clearly automating business to government data exchanges will require from governmentagencies more involvement in and commitment to simplification and harmonisation: tech-nologies have shown their limits.

b The need for standardisation

The first commitment to be expected from governments concerns standards and more par-ticularly standard code lists which can become a universal reference, in all domains, such asaccountancy, nomenclatures of products (even of services), etc. at least in each member state,if not at community level. Of course standards may be only de facto if not de jure. This com-mitment should at least imply for government agencies to use the existing de facto standards,


to develop nomenclatures servers and even mapping tables for those nomenclatures that arewidely used, but are not THE reference.

These standards should also be referred to in laws and regulations so that they can be easilyimplemented in data exchanges, questionnaires and other administrative routines.

The same holds of course for international agencies, including EUROSTAT and other Com-mission services.

Moreover, the concepts used by government administrations should be as close as possible toalready standardised concepts: for example, accounting principles are more and more harmo-nised throughout Europe. A forthcoming further harmonisation at EU level should result in awider use of accounting data by governments.

c The need for market take up

Although government agencies, and especially national statistical institutes, may develop theirown software for handling their surveys, a sizeable development of business to governmentautomated exchanges can only be based on common cross-government interfaces for enter-prises. In other words, enterprises will not massively adhere to the automated systems if theyhave to use a series of packages for their statistical surveys, another series for their registra-tion, others for fiscal returns or social declarations. It is only the market, i.e. software publish-ers and other value added operators, that can have an all encompassing approach to make upan attractive offer to the enterprises. The reduction of workload has this price. The only ambi-tion of TELER was to pave the way in this direction and shed a light for software publisherson what investments they still have to make to break through current difficulties. Today’sproblem is that software houses are focused on the Euro and the year 2000 issues which pre-vent them from taking new initiatives, for the time being.

d New perspectives

Whatever the variant used in TELER, it appears that the administrative questionnaire is nomore an old fashioned piece of paper but an information request, specifying information to besubmitted with a set of descriptions (metadata) that can be read by a computer (at least thecomputer of a software house that will prepare descriptions, extraction and derivation rules,mapping tables for the final user – whether enterprise or intermediary organisation). The pro-cedure of data collection is therefore shifting to new patterns where data specifications mustbe issued beforehand to allow time for software houses to prepare the necessary parametersand for enterprises to adapt their information systems. The use of forms servers, of emergenttechnologies (such as XML, Java applets, etc.) may also prove useful.

Other environment issues should be taken into account such as encryption (which involves theagreement of governments), telecom protocols (which are still differing depending on thegovernment agency), etc.

e Further research work

TELER has demonstrated that whole parts of the collection process can be automated and thatthis will help to lower the workload of all organisations involved in this process (enterprises,


accounting firms, professional organisations and data collectors). But it is still clear that tech-nology cannot compensate for any lack of standardisation; there is still a part that is difficultto fully automate, namely the implementation of metadata, the writing of extraction and deri-vation rules and the building of mapping tables between nomenclatures. TELER has started totest software aids for such problems, such as the modules in EDISENT that help the companyto implement its description and extraction rules. In this area, other research works have al-ready been carried out and some are mentioned in this document.

Finally, there are three (concurrent) ways to alleviate the remaining initial substantial invest-ment necessary to «tune up» the software and ensure a facilitating environment to data ex-changes, so as to fully actualise the potential 80 to 90% gain, on large scales:

• More complex and «smart» technology based on metadata standardisation, online help,helpdesks, nomenclature maintenance systems, etc.

• The outsourcing of these tasks of tuning up and concepts mapping to specialised value-added operators, on the condition that the can write off their technological and methodo-logical investment on many client enterprises – which again requires complex technologyand some kind of common standards

• Huge and protracted efforts from governments and international organisations to harmo-nise their concepts with those used by enterprises, primarily accounting.

The three directions have to be further explored and the European Commission is in the bestposition to encourage such research.


4. CONCLUSIONS AND PLANS FOR THE FUTURE

The common results of the TELER project are maybe even of more interest than the exploita-tion plans in the restricted sense. One should realise that in all the variants the trials provedsavings from 80 to 90% in costs by using EDI. Promoting the concept (and the specifications),among other things by showing the market place, might give more results in terms of loweringthe administrative burden on the enterprises than building and exploiting the software andselling the services. The main interest of all the participants is to simplify the collection of thedata: in the first place for the respondent and in the second place for the data collector.

a Common conclusions

Common results that should be disseminated and promoted are the following:

• Savings up to 90% can be reached when data asked for by the data collectors are actuallystored in the automated information systems at the enterprise. TELER showed that most ofthe data required by the data collectors are stored in automated information systems at theenterprise. Data collectors should know that these savings are feasible. They should for-mulate the questions in the questionnaires as close as possible to the common practice ofthe bookkeeping process.

• The concept of automatic transformation of data stored in the information systems cansuccessfully be achieved directly and/or indirectly using intermediaries.

• Data items that are not kept in the automated systems at the enterprise itself, can be en-tered manually, in addition to the data captured automatically.

• The implementation of the concept will result in considerable gain in costs for the enter-prises:

– for the enterprises using EDISENT directly, or

– for the clients of the accounting firms using the add-on module in the accountingpackages, via lower costs for their accounting firms, or

– for the members of professional organisations taking care of the administrative burdenof enterprises, because of lower costs at their professional organisation.

• The concept is valid irrespective of the country, as long as the software used prescribes nostandardisation of metadata.

• Standardisation of metadata at the respondents side and among respondents would easethe process.

• Standardisation of metadata at the data collector side and among data collectors wouldease the process.

• The various possibilities to lower the administrative burden for the enterprises are de-pending on:


– the situation in the country/sector of industry concerning standardisation of metadataat respondents,

– the situation in the country concerning standardisation of metadata at data collectors,

– direct use of flexible software module independent of the accounting (and other busi-ness administration) software,

– use of an accounting firm taking over the administrative burden on behalf of the enter-prise,

– use of a professional organisation taking over the administrative burden on behalf ofthe enterprise,

– use of an other intermediary taking over the administrative burden on behalf of theenterprise.

Other results that deserve dissemination are:

• a comparison between the situation in the various countries as far as standardisation isconcerned (especially to politicians, governmental institutions, software editors, profes-sional organisations in the software sector),

• the technical possibilities for a variety of possible implementations of the concept (espe-cially to software editors),

• the market place (especially towards software editors).

The plans for the future have to take the promotion of the achievements into account. On theside of the intermediaries, the concept will be disseminated and the available products andservices will continue to demonstrate that the concept is valid. On the side of governmentalinstitutes, the development of standards, of procedures and of co-operation is recommended.

The exploitation of TELER results by the project members is twofold: (i) promotion of theconcept and of the general results (see above), and (ii) the exploitation of the products andservices. However, for none of the organisations that have participated in TELER the real ex-ploitation of the products or services is core business. Moreover, no permanent co-ordinationstructure is left after project's completion. Nevertheless, for continuity reasons and providedthat the Commission gives some political and financial support, the leader of each variant willcontinue to exploit some of the products and services it has developed. At the same time,while making reference to the other TELER partners, each variant leader will independentlyexploit the concept, so as to induce other actors to develop products and services based on it.

b Variant 1 (NSIs)

Statistics Netherlands on behalf of the NSIs will continue the development and disseminationof the EDISENT software module. The EDISENT module will be exploited by the NSIs ofeight countries, already involved in the demonstration phase. The product itself will be devel-oped following two stages in 2000 and 2001. Each participating NSI has developed a de-ployment plan. EDISENT will be installed in 500 to 5000 enterprises in each country. Fol-lowing these plans a saving of 50 Million Euro for the European business society can bereached as a result of lower administrative burden. Finally, the exploitation of EDISENTopens the door to new research and development issues: organisation adaptation at NSIs,communication issues and data security, standardisation of classifications, and co-operationamong government agencies.


No competition is presently identified for this product. Since the NSIs explicitly want to pro-mote the functionality into enterprises software packages e.g. accounting packages, they wel-come the emergence of any competitive or complementary technology.

c Variant 2 (EDIFICAS)

With its demonstrator, EDIFICAS showed the particular issues that accountants have to face,namely the challenge of dealing with data exchanges in a "many to many" relation, in particu-lar in the context of small enterprises. It proved also that the efficiency of the concept devel-oped with TELER, provided that metadata could be standardised.

The EDIFICAS variant aims to analyse how intermediaries acting on behalf of micro enter-prises and small businesses will get cost effective outcome on the overall data collection proc-ess for their customers’ profit. It searches how to couple durably the lessening of administra-tive burden and the benefit of «B to A» framework (as part of E-Commerce) and at the sametime how data collectors will be able to increase efficiency of their own processes.

In this framework, the EDIFICAS demonstrator has revealed encouraging costs savings andproductivity improvement at data providers' side. The software add-on is very positively ac-cepted by the accounting firms. Each software editor is able to apply the concept developingand integrating its own add-on software tool into its administration and accounting packagedsuite.

Accountants neither are software editors nor have, at individual level, the resources to com-municate at large on the concept. However, their professional organisations are in the rightposition to actively participate, together with governmental organisations, to the simplificationof data collection. EDIFICAS plans to promote the concept towards national professional in-stitutes, national governments agencies, value-added networks, and software editors.EDIFICAS also contributes to the standardisation process by participating in standardisationworkgroups.

d Variant 3 (EUROFER)

EUROFER plans to exploit TELER results at two levels: exploiting the demonstrated processand promoting the concept towards professional organisations of other sectors in Europe, andexploiting the know-how by offering services to other organisations.

Together with its three members participating in TELER, it has already taken action con-forming those lines. First the process or a variation of it is being implemented in two countries(FR and the UK). Then the concept has been promoted towards actors of three categories: theEUROFER circle itself, other professional organisations, government agencies and EU insti-tutions. A wider promotional campaign is planned for one year or so, under the provision of apolitical and financial support from the European Commission.

EUROFER has also designed plans to exploit consultancy and value-added services at twonational professional organisations. Future research and development activities foreseen in-clude (i) standardisation of classifications and nomenclatures, to improve the adaptation ofEDI, (ii) simplification and standardisation of communication process and formats, and (iii)test of integrated software packages other than those used.


5. CONTACT POINTS

Project Name TELER – TELematics for Enterprise ReportingResearch Area 4FP Sector: Administrations (Automation of data exchanges between

businesses and Government)Time scale 01.01.96 - 31.03.99Budget Overall cost: 5 260 400 Euro E.C. contribution: 2 499 800 EuroKeywords Accounting firm, Administrative burden, B2A, Business, Data collectors, EDI, Electronic ques-

tionnaire, Enterprise, Metadata, Online feedback, Professional organisation, Reporting, Reposi-tory, Statistical variables, SMEs, Surveys, Telematics

Project Participants

Organisation Country Contact person e-mail

CESIA FR Louis de Fouquières [email protected]

Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek NL G. de Bolster [email protected]

Cap Gemini NL Koos Veefkind [email protected]

Instituto Nacional de Estatistica PT Antonio Portugal [email protected]

Statistiska Centralbyrån SE Evert Blom [email protected]

Tilastokeskus FI Matti Vallaskangas [email protected]

Statistisches Bundesamt DE Gerhard Stock [email protected]

LDS NordrheinWestfalen DE Elmar.Kalthoff [email protected]

LDS Brandenburg DE Klaus Kudell [email protected]

Instituto Nazionale di Statistica IT Giovanni Barbieri [email protected]

INE ES Monserrat Herrador [email protected]

SORS Slovenia Irena Krizman [email protected]

EUROFER LU Jean-Louis Moray [email protected]

EDIFICAS / Europe BE Robert Lemense [email protected]

EDIFICAS / France FR Dominique Faverio [email protected]

Datacare Computers Ltd IE Paul Toye [email protected]

Note: INE Spain and SORS participated in the project on a voluntary, non-subsidised basis

Project Co-ordinators

Project co-ordinator Sub-Project co-ordinatorName Louis A. de Fouquières Hans R. StolCompany CESIA (groupe UNILOG) Statistics NetherlandsStreet 37 rue du Rocher Prinses Beatrixlaan 428City 75378 Paris Cedex 08 2273XZ VoorburgCountry France The NetherlandsTelephone +33 1 40 68 41 30 + 31 70 33 75 072 (contact K.J. Metz)Fax +33 1 40 68 40 13 + 31 70 33 75 973 (contact K.J. Metz)E-mail [email protected] [email protected] (contact K.J. Metz)WWW http://www.cbs.nl

Project URL

http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/eurostat/research/dosis/teler/

TELER Project Consortium

Contact addresses for the Project:Name Louis-Aimé de Fouquières Kees Jan MetzCompany CESIA – Groupe UNILOG Statistics NetherlandsStreet 6 rue du Général de Larminat Prinses Beatrixlaan 428City 75015 Paris 2273XZ VoorburgCountry France The Netherlands

Telephone +33 1 44 49 69 49 + 31 70 33 75 072Fax +33 1 45 66 99 49 + 31 70 33 75 973E-mail [email protected] [email protected]

The Project TELER (TELematics for Enterprise Reporting) has been supportedby the European Commission under the auspices of the

TELEMATICS APPLICATIONS Programme.

Further information on the TELEMATICS APPLICATIONS Programme:You can obtain more information on the projects of the TELEMATICSAPPLICATIONS Programme from:

European Commission, DG XIII, C/1TELEMATICS APPLICATIONS Programme Information deskRue de la Loi 200 - BU 29 - 04/05B - 1049 BrusselsFax: +32 2 295 23 54E-mail: [email protected] on the TELEMATICS APPLICATIONS Programmes’ homepage:http://www.echo.lu/telematics

© CESIA, Statistics Netherlands, Statistics Sweden, Statistics Germany, Statistics Italy,EUROFER, EDIFICAS. Copies are allowed provided that the source is cited.



FINAL REPORT AD1016 - TELER TELematics for Enterprise ... · PDF fileAD1016 TELER Deliverable...

Documents

Transcript of FINAL REPORT AD1016 - TELER TELematics for Enterprise ... · PDF fileAD1016 TELER Deliverable...