Just ask 3M, the St Paul, Minn.-based diversified technology pany, which participated in the SEC’s XBRL voluntary filing program (FVP) well before XBRL filing was mandated.

Why did it take the trouble? “First and foremost, 3M wanted to be fully prepared,” says Tom Jab, financial manager, external reporter for 3M. “However, we also wanted to ensure that our issues and ncerns were addressed, including making sure that most of our financial statement captions would be vered in the taxonomy to limit the need for us to create pany-specific extensions.”

Jab points out that the pany also benefited from sharing lessons and practices with other early-bird program participants. I asked him several questions about his experience with the intention of helping not-so-early birds strengthen their own XBRL adoption processes.

Full Disclosure: In terms of process, what have been some of the key steps in your implementation?

Tom Jab: When we started internal discussions about an XBRL nversion in October 2000, we invited everyone to the table that uld have a role in XBRL, which included the rporate Acunting, IT, Tax, Sourcing, Credit, Internal Audit, and Investor Relations departments, in addition to our financial management software vendor and our external auditors. Not only did we want to keep everyone apprised of plans and development, but also this inclusive team helped us to ensure that all issues were discussed, especially ones that we may have potentially overlooked.

In early 2006, after receiving the necessary internal approvals to participate in the SEC’s VFP, a big step was making the decision to outsource the XBRL nversion to a third party. Although we wanted to be actively involved in the technology and selecting the tags for our line items, we didn’t want to strain our internal resources. Ultimately, we felt that having a partner who had experience in helping other panies nvert to XBRL, and who uld answer our questions, was a big benefit. But this was a decision that our management team made after exploring all of the alternatives.

FD: How did you select a software tool?

TJ: Our outsourcing vendor uses Fujitsu’s XWand.

FD: What have been the biggest (time-nsuming and/or expensive) challenges so far?

TJ: Really, the biggest challenge is getting through the first filing. Even though we used a third party, it still required about 80 hours of our staff’s time to do the initial filing, which required getting cated, reviewing the tags, and the final submission. In parison, subsequent filings have only taken about 8 hours of our staff’s time. So panies should not underestimate the time required for the first filing, even if you are outsourcing part of the process.

FD: What, if anything, has surprised you about the actual process?

TJ: The abundance of available resources today is tremendous pared with just a uple of years ago. Initial XBRL filers, such as 3M who became part of the SEC VFP in early 2006, helped identify issues, made suggestions for improving the taxonomies, and assisted with development of the Preparer’s Guide. These and other improvements have made it much easier for current filers to bee familiar with and furnish documents via XBRL. While panies should still allow ample time to implement XBRL, the process and resources have improved significantly over the past uple of years.

FD: What advice or guidance would you give to other finance executives and managers as they move toward XBRL implementation?

TJ: 3M began its recent active involvement with XBRL in early 2006. Since panies won’t have the luxury now of taking an extended period of time to learn and refine the process, they should start the planning and cation process today. They should take advantage of the information and resources available to get familiar with XBRL, such as reviewing the Preparer’s Guide and webinars available through XBRL US. Even if you use a knowledgeable third party to assist in the process, the pany should have a designated team that will be actively involved.