A city plans multi-domain MDM covering party, location, and asset but only designs isolated golden records with no links among them. What is missing?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
A golden person, a golden parcel, and a golden fire hydrant sitting in three silent silos still will not tell you who owns what where. Multi-domain MDM needs the relationships—occupies, owns, installed-at. Isolated hubs leave the story unfinished.
Full Explanation
Multi-domain MDM covering party, location, and asset that only designs isolated golden records with no links among them is missing relationship modeling among master domains so ownership, occupancy, and asset placement stay connected. Civic questions like “who owns which parcel with which meter” require relationships, not only orphan golden tables. Requiring all domains in a single spreadsheet tab fails as an anti-pattern for enterprise masters. Eliminating location masters because assets already imply geography fails; assets and locations are distinct domains that still need explicit links. Forbidding parties from associating with more than one location historically fails real-world moves and multi-site ownership. Exam caveat: multi-domain MDM includes relationships among masters, not only separate golden records. Operational check: model party–location–asset relationships needed by utility and assessor use cases, test traversals, and govern relationship stewardship. Include relationship integrity checks in the municipal MDM test plan before go-live. Keep verification evidence with the municipal runbook so audits can prove the chosen control was applied as designed and that rejected alternatives would have left city services exposed to the failure modes described above.