Some votes in the current standing has gone to this answer:
There is no viable industry standard for our kind of products
Indeed, having a standard that all your trading partners use too, will be Utopia.
This is however not the situation for most participants in supply chains. There are many standards out there, but each applicable for a certain group of products, geography or purpose as explained in the post Five Product Classification Standards.
At Product Data Lake we embrace all these standards. If you use the same standard in the same version as your trading partner, linking and transformation is easy. If you do not, you can use Product Data Lake to link and transform from your way to the way your trading partners handles product information. Learn more at Product Data Lake Documentation and Data Governance.
A keynote at the Master Data Management Summit Europe 2017 was presented by Mar Cabra, Editor, Data & Research Unit, International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). In her presentation Mar told how journalists explored huge amounts of data in order to reveal how rich and famous people used tax havens to avoid paying tax in their home countries.
Some of the technologies used in doing that are the same emerging technologies we right now are considering, and some are already using, within Master Data Management as for example graph databases.
What stroke me the most was however the sharing approach that probably made all the difference in the impact achieved from revealing the core data in the Panama Papers. The journalists from Süddeutsche Zeitung who originality was offered the data did not keep the data to themselves but shared the data with the community of journalists in the news media ecosystem from around the world.
We can also make better use of master data, and gain better business impact, if we share feasible master data in wider business ecosystems as explained here on the piece on Master Data Share.
I’m not saying all enterprises should share everything with their business ecosystems. For party master data there are indeed many limitations as very much trending these days with the upcoming GDPR regulations. With product master data you should also consider what is best managed as your own story and what is best for your business in a sharing approach. These considerations are elaborated in the post Using Internal and External Product Information to Win.
A man with one watch knows what time it is, but a man with two watches is never quite sure. This old saying could be modernized to, that a person with one smart device knows the truth, but a person with two smart devices is never quite sure.
An example from my own life is measuring my daily steps in order to motivate me to be more fit. Currently I have two data streams coming in. One is managed by the app Google Fit and one is managed by the app S Health (from Samsung).
This morning a same time shot looked like this:
So, how many steps did I take this morning? 2,047 or 2413?
The steps are presented on the same device. A smartphone. They are though measured on two different devices. Google Fit data are measured on the smartphone itself while S Health data are measured on a connected smartwatch. Therefore, I might not be wearing these devices in the exact same way. For example, I am the kind of Luddite that do not bring the phone to the loo.
With the rise of the Internet of Things (IoT) and the expected intensive use of the big data streams coming from all kinds of smart devices, we will face heaps of similar cases, where we have two or more sets of data telling the same story in a different way.
A key to utilize these data in the best fit way is to understand from what and where these data comes. Knowing that is achieved through modern Master Data Management (MDM).
Until now, much of the methodology and technology in the Master Data Management (MDM) world has been about how to optimize the use of what can be called first party master data. This is master data already collected within your organization and the approaches to MDM and the MDM solutions offered has revolved around federating internal silos and obtain a single source of truth within the corporate walls.
Besides that third-party data has been around for many years as described in the post Third-Party Data and MDM. Use of third party data in MDM has mainly been about enriching customer and supplier master data from business directories and in some degree utilizing standardized pools of product data in various solutions.
Using third party data for customer and supplier master data seems to be a very good idea as exemplified in the post Using a Business Entity Identifier from Day One. This is because customer and supplier master looks pretty much the same to every organization. With product master data this is not case and that is why third party sources for product master data may not be fully effective.
Second party data is data you get directly from the external source. With customer and supplier master data we see that approach in self-registration services. My recommendation is to combine self-registration and third party data in customer and supplier on-boarding processes. With product master data I think leaning mostly to second party connections in business ecosystems seems like the best way forward. There is more on that in a discussion on the LinkedIn MDM – Master Data Management Group.
One of the ways to ensure data quality for customer – or rather party – master data when operating in a business-to-business (B2B) environment, is to on-board new entries using an external defined business entity identifier.
By doing that, you tackle some of the most challenging data quality dimensions as:
Accuracy, by having names, addresses and other information defaulted from a business directory and thus avoiding those spelling mistakes that usually are all over in party master data.
Conformity, by inheriting additional data as line-of-business codes and descriptions from a business directory.
Having an external business identifier stored with your party master data helps a lot with maintaining data quality as pondered in the post Ongoing Data Maintenance.
When selecting an identifier there are different options as national IDs, LEI, DUNS Number and others as explained in the post Business Entity Identifiers.
At the Product Data Lake service I am working on right now, we have decided to use an external business identifier from day one. I know this may be something a typical start-up will consider much later if and when the party master data population has grown. But, besides being optimistic about our service, I think it will be a win not to have to fight data quality issues later with guarantied increased costs.
For the identifier to use we have chosen the DUNS Number from Dun & Bradstreet. The reason is that this currently is the only worldwide covered business identifier. Also, Dun & Bradstreet offers some additional data that fits our business model. This includes consistent line-of-business information and worldwide company family trees.
It is never too late to start up, I have heard. So despite I usually brag about having +35 years of experience in the intersection of business and IT and a huge been done list in Data Quality and Master Data Management (MDM) which can get me nice consultancy engagements, a certain need on the market has been puzzling in my head for some time.
Before that, when someone asked me what to do in the MDM space I told them to create something around sharing master data between organisations. Most MDM solutions are sold to a given organization to cover the internal processes there. There are not many solutions out there that covers what is going on between organizations.
But why not do that myself? – with the help of some younger people.
You may have noticed, that I during the last year have been writing about something called the Product Data Lake. This has until recently mostly just been a business concept that could be presented on power point slides. So called slideware. But now it is becoming real software being deployed in the cloud.
At home in Denmark, some young people are working on our solution too as well as the related launching activities and social media upbeat. This includes a LinkedIn company page. For continuous stories about our start-up, please follow the Product Data Lake page on LinkedIn here.
As told in the post Where the Streets have Two Names one aspect of address validation is the fact, that in some parts of the world, a given postal address can be presented in more than one language.
I experienced that today when using Google Maps for directions to a Master Data Management (MDM) conference in Helsinki, Finland. When typing in the address I got this message:
The case is that the two addresses proposed by Google Maps are exactly the same address, just spelled in Swedish and Finnish, the two official languages used in this region.
I think Google Maps is an example of a splendid world-wide service. But even the best world-wide services sometimes don’t match local tailored services. This is in my experience the case when it comes to address management solutions as address validation and assistance whether they come as an integrated part of a Master Data Management (MDM) solution, a stand-alone data quality tool or a general service as Google Maps.