Reltio Connect

Looking for some feedback regarding best practices around data modeling and governance.

 Hypothetical situation

• Implementing account 360 as a starting point.
• Data will be coming in from different states
• Matching will be configured to only match when the states are the same.
• Each state has Data Governance team that sets
• Matching rules for their state
• Survivorship rules
• Cleansing / validation may need to be handled at the state level as well
• Roles will be created based on states so that privileges will be set at the state level (e.g. someone with access to CA should only see CA data)

Considering the above, is it generally best practice to:

1. Use entities Organization and Contact with a state field or
2. Create state specific Organization and Contact entities that extend Organization and Contact

For #1,

• I would be concerned with matching as the number of match rules could easily exceed 100+, much more than the recommended max of 10 per entity.   Would this matter since they would all have an exact state match as a component?
• The maintenance and security configuration may be more difficult since everything would be done on two entities, but filtered by state. Would this be the case?
• Are there any other performance considerations?

 
For #2,

• This would multiply the number of entities by the number of states configured.  Would this be a concern?  I didn't see anything related max entities in a model.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Looking for some feedback regarding best practices around data modeling and governance.

 Hypothetical situation

• Implementing account 360 as a starting point.
• Data will be coming in from different states
• Matching will be configured to only match when the states are the same.
• Each state has Data Governance team that sets
• Matching rules for their state
• Survivorship rules
• Cleansing / validation may need to be handled at the state level as well
• Roles will be created based on states so that privileges will be set at the state level (e.g. someone with access to CA should only see CA data)

Considering the above, is it generally best practice to:

1. Use entities Organization and Contact with a state field or
2. Create state specific Organization and Contact entities that extend Organization and Contact

For #1,

• I would be concerned with matching as the number of match rules could easily exceed 100+, much more than the recommended max of 10 per entity.   Would this matter since they would all have an exact state match as a component?
• The maintenance and security configuration may be more difficult since everything would be done on two entities, but filtered by state. Would this be the case?
• Are there any other performance considerations?

 
For #2,

• This would multiply the number of entities by the number of states configured.  Would this be a concern?  I didn't see anything related max entities in a model.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Looking for some feedback regarding best practices around data modeling and governance.

 Hypothetical situation

• Implementing account 360 as a starting point.
• Data will be coming in from different states
• Matching will be configured to only match when the states are the same.
• Each state has Data Governance team that sets
• Matching rules for their state
• Survivorship rules
• Cleansing / validation may need to be handled at the state level as well
• Roles will be created based on states so that privileges will be set at the state level (e.g. someone with access to CA should only see CA data)

Considering the above, is it generally best practice to:

1. Use entities Organization and Contact with a state field or
2. Create state specific Organization and Contact entities that extend Organization and Contact

For #1,

• I would be concerned with matching as the number of match rules could easily exceed 100+, much more than the recommended max of 10 per entity.   Would this matter since they would all have an exact state match as a component?
• The maintenance and security configuration may be more difficult since everything would be done on two entities, but filtered by state. Would this be the case?
• Are there any other performance considerations?

 
For #2,

• This would multiply the number of entities by the number of states configured.  Would this be a concern?  I didn't see anything related max entities in a model.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Looking for some feedback regarding best practices around data modeling and governance.

 Hypothetical situation

• Implementing account 360 as a starting point.
• Data will be coming in from different states
• Matching will be configured to only match when the states are the same.
• Each state has Data Governance team that sets
• Matching rules for their state
• Survivorship rules
• Cleansing / validation may need to be handled at the state level as well
• Roles will be created based on states so that privileges will be set at the state level (e.g. someone with access to CA should only see CA data)

Considering the above, is it generally best practice to:

1. Use entities Organization and Contact with a state field or
2. Create state specific Organization and Contact entities that extend Organization and Contact

For #1,

• I would be concerned with matching as the number of match rules could easily exceed 100+, much more than the recommended max of 10 per entity.   Would this matter since they would all have an exact state match as a component?
• The maintenance and security configuration may be more difficult since everything would be done on two entities, but filtered by state. Would this be the case?
• Are there any other performance considerations?

 
For #2,

• This would multiply the number of entities by the number of states configured.  Would this be a concern?  I didn't see anything related max entities in a model.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Looking for some feedback regarding best practices around data modeling and governance.

 Hypothetical situation

• Implementing account 360 as a starting point.
• Data will be coming in from different states
• Matching will be configured to only match when the states are the same.
• Each state has Data Governance team that sets
• Matching rules for their state
• Survivorship rules
• Cleansing / validation may need to be handled at the state level as well
• Roles will be created based on states so that privileges will be set at the state level (e.g. someone with access to CA should only see CA data)

Considering the above, is it generally best practice to:

1. Use entities Organization and Contact with a state field or
2. Create state specific Organization and Contact entities that extend Organization and Contact

For #1,

• I would be concerned with matching as the number of match rules could easily exceed 100+, much more than the recommended max of 10 per entity.   Would this matter since they would all have an exact state match as a component?
• The maintenance and security configuration may be more difficult since everything would be done on two entities, but filtered by state. Would this be the case?
• Are there any other performance considerations?

 
For #2,

• This would multiply the number of entities by the number of states configured.  Would this be a concern?  I didn't see anything related max entities in a model.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Looking for some feedback regarding best practices around data modeling and governance.

 Hypothetical situation

• Implementing account 360 as a starting point.
• Data will be coming in from different states
• Matching will be configured to only match when the states are the same.
• Each state has Data Governance team that sets
• Matching rules for their state
• Survivorship rules
• Cleansing / validation may need to be handled at the state level as well
• Roles will be created based on states so that privileges will be set at the state level (e.g. someone with access to CA should only see CA data)

Considering the above, is it generally best practice to:

1. Use entities Organization and Contact with a state field or
2. Create state specific Organization and Contact entities that extend Organization and Contact

For #1,

• I would be concerned with matching as the number of match rules could easily exceed 100+, much more than the recommended max of 10 per entity.   Would this matter since they would all have an exact state match as a component?
• The maintenance and security configuration may be more difficult since everything would be done on two entities, but filtered by state. Would this be the case?
• Are there any other performance considerations?

 
For #2,

• This would multiply the number of entities by the number of states configured.  Would this be a concern?  I didn't see anything related max entities in a model.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Looking for some feedback regarding best practices around data modeling and governance.

 Hypothetical situation

• Implementing account 360 as a starting point.
• Data will be coming in from different states
• Matching will be configured to only match when the states are the same.
• Each state has Data Governance team that sets
• Matching rules for their state
• Survivorship rules
• Cleansing / validation may need to be handled at the state level as well
• Roles will be created based on states so that privileges will be set at the state level (e.g. someone with access to CA should only see CA data)

Considering the above, is it generally best practice to:

1. Use entities Organization and Contact with a state field or
2. Create state specific Organization and Contact entities that extend Organization and Contact

For #1,

• I would be concerned with matching as the number of match rules could easily exceed 100+, much more than the recommended max of 10 per entity.   Would this matter since they would all have an exact state match as a component?
• The maintenance and security configuration may be more difficult since everything would be done on two entities, but filtered by state. Would this be the case?
• Are there any other performance considerations?

 
For #2,

• This would multiply the number of entities by the number of states configured.  Would this be a concern?  I didn't see anything related max entities in a model.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Ted, 

That was my original thought too, but wasn't sure if that's what the consensus would be.  This is a hypothetical scenario but I feel that it illustrates some design considerations when there are large implementations with complex governance structures in place, each with different business rules.  

Looking for some feedback regarding best practices around data modeling and governance.

 Hypothetical situation

• Implementing account 360 as a starting point.
• Data will be coming in from different states
• Matching will be configured to only match when the states are the same.
• Each state has Data Governance team that sets
• Matching rules for their state
• Survivorship rules
• Cleansing / validation may need to be handled at the state level as well
• Roles will be created based on states so that privileges will be set at the state level (e.g. someone with access to CA should only see CA data)

Considering the above, is it generally best practice to:

1. Use entities Organization and Contact with a state field or
2. Create state specific Organization and Contact entities that extend Organization and Contact

For #1,

• I would be concerned with matching as the number of match rules could easily exceed 100+, much more than the recommended max of 10 per entity.   Would this matter since they would all have an exact state match as a component?
• The maintenance and security configuration may be more difficult since everything would be done on two entities, but filtered by state. Would this be the case?
• Are there any other performance considerations?

 
For #2,

• This would multiply the number of entities by the number of states configured.  Would this be a concern?  I didn't see anything related max entities in a model.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,