Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Mastering Reference Data


Master data and reference data are not exactly the same. Understand and manage the difference and you can improve planning, business processes, reporting, and service delivery.
By Robert Rowe, Senior marketing manager for MDM, Software AG
When it comes to master data management (MDM) and reference data management (RDM), there remains disagreement about the distinction between master and reference data. One expert says that reference data is master data (or at least a subset of master data). Another says that reference and master data are two different things.
Listening to these expert discussions can induce a kind of deer-in-the-headlights paralysis among those responsible for enterprise-wide data management. This is problematic because instinctively we know that we have to manage this data regardless of what we call it.
The real difficulty is that we have to manage master and reference data differently, to some degree, and that gives rise to other questions that are hard to answer: If you've deployed tools to manage and master your master data, have you implicitly brought in the tools to also manage and master your reference data?
Let's step back and consider a practical distinction between master data and reference data, one that people who do not spend their lives doing research and analysis on such matters can use to improve operations within their organizations.
Working Definitions
Let's start with master data. What is it? Master data documents and describes the data that is part of your organization's core business processes. It's data whose definitions are defined within your organization and are not necessarily recognized by anyone outside your organization. One set of master data elements might be related to your customers: a customer number, a contact name and address, phone numbers, and shipping addresses, for example. Another set of master data elements might cover your products, and for any given product there may be a set of master data elements that identify component parts, each of which would have a unique part number. Other product attributes that would be mastered include the product description, packaging information, engineering documents, and images.
Reference data is different. In many (if not most) instances, reference data is created and defined externally by a governmental or independent agency or the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Reference data elements have meaning and significance that is shared among many users, organizations, and companies. A ZIP code, for example, should be viewed as a reference data element. ZIP codes are defined by the postal service, and any organization that sends a package to Reston, Virginia, will use the same ZIP code -- 20190.

From this one example, you may begin to see a wide range of data elements in use throughout your enterprise that should be viewed as reference data elements: medical procedure and billing codes, time zones, industry codes (SIC and NAIC), airline flight schedules, currency codes, currency exchange rates, and much more. These data elements may be intimately tied to master data, but they are reference data elements and not so frequently changed. We obtain and use them differently, and certain aspects of them are managed differently.
Distinct Management Challenges
There are some similarities in the mastering and management of master and reference data, and there are also differences. For example, both require the application of security and data governance. Only specifically designated people should be authorized to contribute to, change, or delete this data. However, data cleansing operations, such as removing duplications and merging records, is really focused on master data, not reference data, and mainly for customer and product domains. Let's investigate some other differences in managing this data.
Data Creation or Sourcing
Fundamentally, creating or sourcing reference data is easy. Much of it is created and maintained by an external agency, and you can obtain it directly from its source. That's rarely even a manual process today; you can rely on a data feed from the agency that owns the data.
Thus, you could use an ISO exchange rate code in your accounts receivable system, for example, instead of a specific exchange rate. The ISO exchange rate code would always refer to the actual value of the exchange rate prevailing in the market at that moment. By deriving the exchange rate from the ISO exchange rate code, you eliminate the need to enter a new exchange rate every time the rate changes -- but your reference data for exchange rates is always up to date.
The ability to rely on an externally maintained reference data element, however, poses its own challenges. If a new currency is introduced, for example, or if one member of the Eurozone decides to abandon the Euro and return to a sovereign currency, the owning organization will update the exchange rate codes themselves. If you are relying on ISO currency codes and exchange rate codes, you'll need to version the ones in use for auditing purposes and then publish the updates to subscribing systems.
You'll want to be able to master and manage this updated reference data in a carefully planned and coordinated manner. A workflow process is critical, as is an approval process that considers your organization's policies about data governance Should subscribing systems fall out of sync, there is a real danger that the organization will encounter inconsistencies that could affect everything from business planning and purchasing to manufacturing, financial reporting, and auditing.