Knowing that this idea is nearly a decade old, and still not even briefly mentioned in passing by university accounting professors, is a fairly good indicator of the lack of value had by the idea. Whereas if it were generated in the past year, we may be on the bleeding edge of acquiring and employing this knowledge -- beta-testing it before experts in the accounting field have had a chance to review that code.
Your interpretation, unknown due to lack of value, may be valid but is more likely incorrect. Historically, ideas take a long time (decades or more), before adoption. Some are simply not marketed on a wide scale, little exposure causing little adoption/implementation. Other ideas, even though as equally valid as ones that are adopted, are simply not implemented due to circumstance (one excludes the other due to existing infrastructure, etc.). Others are actively resisted (especially in the sciences, e.g. tectonics, ulcers due to bacteria/viruses instead of stress). Please do not judge an idea based on its age or lack thereof.
>is a fairly good indicator of the lack of value had by the idea.
Or a fairly good indicator of accounting habits inertia. I have no idea which one is true, but a great idea is not enough by itself to be adopted by everybody (end of world hunger anybody ?).
10 years is not a long time in accounting. Just consider the fact that there is no complete theoretical framework behind the IFRS, or any accounting standard for that matter. But there have been multi-dimensional approaches to accounting Ellerman and Ijiri coming to mind. Furthermore, dimensions are used extensively in consolidations etc., albeit in a double entry manner. One year is definitely not the beta-testing period in accounting.
