Scenarios 16–20
16 — External Code Annual Update
Practice: Industry codes change every January.
Decision key: problem = planned Reference lifecycle/change; supporting = Metadata, integration, impact, governance. Roles = Reference Steward, governance, application/integration owners, consumers. Best: record source/schedule, acquire version, identify stakeholders/impact, approve/implement, retain history, communicate effective date. Weaker: silently replace because source is external. Changed: unexpected local request → ad hoc, stronger case-specific review.
Source: pp. 353–357.
17 — Reference Hierarchy Edit
Practice: Steward changes a parent code and breaks downstream classifications.
Decision key: problem = structural Reference change; supporting = stewardship, DQ, Metadata, governance. Best: enforce hierarchy rules, approval, impact analysis, affected mappings/reports/code review, version/history, communication. Weaker: direct row edit because individual value is valid. Changed: relationship is among real Master entities → affiliation/hierarchy management in MDM.
Source: pp. 336–338, 353–357.
18 — Great MDM Software, Poor Results
Practice: Matching platform installed, but nobody owns rules, sources, exceptions, or adoption.
Decision key: problem = missing operating model/governance; supporting = stewardship, DQ, architecture, change. Best: establish source authority, ownership, quality rules, match/exception handling, maintenance, publication/adoption, metrics, roadmap. Weaker: buy another matcher. Changed: governance works and evidence points to match logic/source quality → tune algorithms/fix source.
Source: pp. 340–359.
19 — Low Adoption of Central Codes
Practice: Central RDM repository exists, but each application still uses local values.
Decision key: problem = adoption/governance failure despite central capability; supporting = System of Reference, stewardship, integration, metrics. Best: define/mandate authoritative Reference source, build consumption patterns, migrate apps, govern exceptions, measure ingestion/consumption. Weaker: declare success because repository exists. Changed: apps consume governed set but delivery is late → SLA/data-movement monitoring.
Source: pp. 353–359.
20 — Downstream Quality Issue
Practice: Consumers receive late and inaccurate shared Master Data.
Decision key: problem = provider-consumer service + content quality failure; supporting = DQ, lineage, SLAs, stewardship, governance. Best: use sharing agreements/SLAs, monitor latency and quality, trace upstream root cause, assign remediation, communicate status. Weaker: fix values only downstream; inconsistency repeats. Changed: delivery timely but entity match wrong → entity-resolution stewardship/history/rule correction.
Source: pp. 356–359.