Canadian Business Software Standards Focus Testing

Prepared for the:
Public Affairs Branch
Canada Revenue Agency
FINAL REPORT
February 2008
POR# 255-07
Contract #46558-085742

Prepared by:
Western Opinion Research

Le rapport complet en français sera fourni sur demande.

To request a full copy of this report, please contact Library and Archives Canada at:
613-996-5115 or 1-866-578-7777 or www.collectionscanada.ca

Media Enquiries:
Media Relations
Canada Revenue Agency
4th Floor 555 MacKenzie Avenue
Ottawa ON K1A 0L5
media.relations@cra-arc.gc.ca

Summary Of Objectives And Method

This study involved 10 focus groups – two in each of Halifax, Quebec City, Kitchener Ontario, Winnipeg and Vancouver. Focus groups are a qualitative methodology, where approximately 8-10 participants engage in a discussion led by a moderator who follows a guide with pre-established questions designed to meet the objectives of the study. For this study, one group in each city was conducted with small and medium sized principal business owners or senior financial staff. The second group in each city was conducted with accountants and bookkeepers who serve small and medium enterprises (SME).

The main objective of this study was to investigate how communications concepts could be developed to encourage the target audience to use and adopt the Canadian Business Software Standards (CBSS), a component of which is the Canadian Standard Export File (CSEF). CBSS is a software standard that is being developed by a Working Group consisting of the Federal Government, Provincial Governments, software developers and professional accounting and auditing association representatives for use in financial software. The goal of the standard is to help software developers ensure that their accounting and point‑of sale software contains features that help small and medium businesses improve the quality of business management and record keeping and facilitate the transfer of information. The CSEF is a specific electronic export file format that helps facilitate the transfer of financial information.

To meet the main research objective, participants were exposed to various statements about CBSS/CSEF and specific points that supported each statement. Participants were asked to read and evaluate the statements on such issues as relevance, credibility and usefulness. The study also investigated opinions towards the concept overall, and it gathered some information about current use of financial software. Participants were also asked for their opinions on the name of the initiative and issues concerning self-regulation among software manufacturers and endorsement of the standards.

Unless otherwise specified, comments found in the report in large part equally represent the Owners/Financial Employees group and the Third Party representatives group. However, it should be noted that feedback received from the Third Party group was generally more positive than the Owners/Financial Employees group. The two groups will be discussed separately where there was clearly a difference in overall opinion between them.

Key Findings – Concept & Implementation

The General Software Standards Concept Evaluation Page Rated Well

Participants were shown a page listing reasons for implementing software standards in general. This information was rated well, in terms of its ability to communicate the concept and get people to agree with CBSS/CSEF. Standards could help produce data that will be in the correct form for many different uses. In the sub-statements, participants like the terms "sufficient detail", "format required", "reliability", "sufficient level of reliability" and "confident their records are reliable and accurate".

Participants Appreciated That Data Could Be More Easily Transferred

The main benefit perceived by some was that data could be easily transferred from one program to another and accountants/bookkeepers were more likely to realize this. More specifically, manual entry of General Ledgers (GL) could be reduced or eliminated if there was an automated process to transfer data from one software to another. Also there would be less need to keep legacy hardware and software around. Some felt, however, that many programs export directly to Microsoft Excel now, and that the benefit of data transfer from one program to another was not that significant. There were a few who realized that making CRA's job easier would save businesses time and money in the end. However, this was clearly a minority opinion.

The term "export" seemed to accurately capture the benefit that people relate to most – moving data from one type of software to another. "Import", "portability", "consolidate" and "move data" were synonyms that were also used.

However, In Many Cases, Initial Reaction to the CBSS/CSEF Concept Was Met with Skepticism.

Most participants in many of the groups had difficulty understanding the concept as presented to them by the communications and key messages, and much time was spent clarifying it. Once this was accomplished, some participants had a more positive view, but for many others it remained generally negative. There were three main reasons:

• Most participants were concerned about privacy and control of data and were not comfortable with the idea that all financial data could possibly be included in a CSEF. Virtually all participants wanted to be able to release only the data that is requested and nothing more.
• Many participants had difficulty believing the CSEF could do what it claimed –having never heard of a data transfer on this scale being accomplished with such ease. Also, some participants felt that a CSEF could not account for all of the unique data transfer situations that would exist.
• Most participants were very concerned about the involvement of CRA. They perceived that the CBSS/CSEF would make audits and tax collections easier. Many participants also agreed that CRA would be the main beneficiary of the initiative and not businesses themselves, and they vocally objected to making CRA's job easier. Some accountants and bookkeepers were concerned that clients would export data directly to CRA without their involvement.

Naming The Standard, Self-Certification And Endorsement.

Overall, participants seemed to like the proposed names for the CBSS and CSEF. There was general appreciation for including the term Canadian in the names. Use of the term "audit", or "accounting software" was not recommended.

In terms of certification, participants felt that a third party should certify the software to ensure the standards were adhered to. They did not favour the idea of having software manufacturers self-certify their products. Opinions about CRA's involvement with certification were mixed. Some felt that since CRA will be the primary beneficiary of the CBSS/CSEF, they should be involved in certifying it. Conversely, other participants had a general distrust of CRA, and many felt that its involvement should be minimized.

A similar opinion was expressed by some about CRA's involvement with the idea of an on-line registry of CBSS compliant software. Some agreed that the more registries there are the better. However, others felt that CRA should not endorse a particular software, and that a registry hosted by CRA would do just that.

Finally, some participants supported the idea of third party endorsement of CBSS/CSEF, and the idea that the endorsement should come from independent organizations such as those representing accountants or the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses. These participants felt that the CRA should not be involved in this respect.

Key Findings – Communications & Key Messages

• The focus groups examined a number of key messages for communicating the CBSS/CSEF. Overall, participants reactions to the messages varied greatly, ranging from somewhat positive to generally negative.

The Message "Makes Life Easier For Accountants" Received A Little Support.

While some accountants supported this statement as a main reason to pursue CBSS/CSEF, other participants said accountants and bookkeepers are there for businesses (their clients) and they should be the main reason for the initiative. Many participants agreed that not having to manually enter General Ledgers and transfer data across accounting software was a main benefit of the CSEF, and one that was primarily of benefit to accountants.

The sub-statements 'using the data for financial analysis and drafting reports' received mixed opinions overall. Businesses were generally indifferent and many accountants felt that they were functioning just fine on these issues. Some accountants already use many accounting software packages, and some felt the ability to import from one software to another was not a significant benefit. Finally, accountants did not see how a software standard could improve record keeping among clients – they felt this claim did not appear believable.

The Message "Makes Life Easier For Businesses And Save Time" Received Mixed Reviews As It Relates To Communicating The Concept. However, There Were Some Phrases That Participants Thought Communicated The Benefits Of CBSS/CSEF Well.

Many participants recognized that this was important for businesses, and in the end this was rated as the most important reason to undertake the CBSS/CSEF initiative. However, there were drawbacks identified with this phrase. Some participants said it is overused and has lost a lot of meaning and credibility. Many participants think CBSS/CSEF will only save a few hours of time in data transfer and data entry– not enough benefit to really make the claim.

Participants were provided with narrative associated with the overall statements. The narrative referring to "standard accessible format", "transfer data between different types of software" and "without requiring data conversion" overall were viewed as doing a good job of communicating the concept by some participants. "Easily import the data extracted" was seen as a good way to describe the benefit of moving data from one system to another. The example of consolidating data among different business units was seen as something that would be difficult to do with CBSS/CSEF. Finally, many participants were not fond of the concept of "self-assessing" data.

The Message "Makes Meeting Government Requirements Easier And Faster" Was Not Viewed Positively By Most Participants.

Most participants had no intrinsic desire to make meeting government requirements easier and faster, and they believed that if they did this, they would not see the benefit directly. There appeared to be some resentment among some participants associated with the idea of having accountants and businesses incur the difficulties and expense involved in changing systems to make the government's job easier. Many participants also did not feel that the time savings would be significant, and that making government requirements easier reduces the involvement accountants have with a business. This statement did not rank well among many participants as one to associate with the CBSS/CSEF concept.

In terms of specific sub-statements associated with this particular message, many participants did not feel the CSEF would save time in having to explain their accounting system to an auditor. There were some who liked the idea that data could be archived independently of hardware or software. However, others found this to be unattainable.

The Message "Saves The Government Time And Money" Was Not Viewed Positively By Most Participants.

Virtually all participants did not see this message as a reason that is important to them to implement the CBSS/CSEF, and some had strong reactions against this message. Some participants do not want to save government time or money. They do not believe that the benefits will be returned, and they do not want to have to put out the effort necessary for the government to achieve this. This statement was generally ranked as a reason not to implement CBSS/CSEF.

In terms of the sub-statements, many participants did appreciate that saving auditors time could be positive, but participants would like to see evidence of this. Moreover, the statement about reducing auditor training drew negative opinion. Many participants did not appreciate the idea of internet transfer of data to auditors because of issues surrounding confidentiality, and many participants did not feel sustainable development issues were relevant arguments to support CBSS/CSEF.

Date modified:

2008-07-29