Making sense with Social MDM

A few days ago Jeff Jonas of IBM made a new blog post called Master Data Management (MDM) vs. Sensemaking.

iDQ microscopeHerein Jeff Jonas ponders the differences in the data matching algorithms we use in traditional MDM, predominately name and address matching, and the kind of identity resolution we need when we for example try to listen to and make sense of the signals in the social media data streams.

Jeff Jonas says: “Different missions, different tools.  Some organizations will use one or the other; most organizations will want both.”  

I tend to disagree slightly with Jeff Jonas. As told in the post The New Year in Identity Resolution I think we will need a connection between the old systems of record and the new systems of engagement.

Indeed the algorithms will be used differently and indeed we need different thresholds of confidence for different tasks. But I think we will have to make the integration story a bit more complicated in order to make sensible decisions across the two missions.

Bookmark and Share

4 thoughts on “Making sense with Social MDM

  1. John Owens 17th March 2013 / 20:56

    Hi Henrik

    I think I would change the term ‘a bit more complicated’ to read ‘a lot more comprehensive’.

    The one thing that must be avoided at all costs is making the link between unique Party Identifies and their (perhaps myriad) Social Identities more complicated.

    It is the person or organisation who can identify the underlying simplicity and bring about the resolution in the least complicated way that will take the prize here.

    Regards
    John

    • Henrik Liliendahl Sørensen 17th March 2013 / 22:57

      Sure John. I always like to keep it simple as long as it isn’t the shortcut to getting it all wrong.

  2. Bill Dorner 19th March 2013 / 16:00

    I agree that you’ll need the connection between the two to truly understand and complete the 360 degree view of the party. There are ways to accomplish this without it becoming too complicated, but they cannot be separate.

    • Henrik Liliendahl Sørensen 22nd March 2013 / 10:51

      Thanks Bill. My take too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s