Main Content
Clarification on Defining Master Data Management
I was reviewing some material I had written about 1 1/2 years ago on MDM and it struck me that I have gone through some revisions on my opinions regarding the definition of master data. At first my perception was that master data, by definition, should be extracted from its numerous source systems and consolidated into its own data repository, to be accessed by downstream applications.
The problem I kept coming up with for this definition is advocating copying data from one set of locations to be potentially altered and placed in another location - doesn’t this present the opportunity for inconsistency and errors to creep into the target system? And if one of the drivers for MDM is improved data quality, then creating a situation where data quality can degrade is probably not in alignment with the concepts of MDM.
Here is a revised approach to defining master data management: A framework for enabling transparent access to a high quality unified representation or presentation of information associated with each uniquely identifiable entity within a relevant business data object class. This attempt at definition captures the concepts (unique identification, unified representation, business relevance, transparent access) but does not imply an architecture or implementation.
Leave a Reply
The blog content appearing on this site does not necessarily represent the opinions of DataFlux
