An independent reading of your master data strategy, in writing, by someone with no MDM platform to sell you.
Customer, product, or vendor data lives in multiple systems, each with its own version of the truth, and “which record is correct” is a question someone in the business answers manually, repeatedly, because no genuine golden-record process exists. Whether you’re evaluating Informatica, Profisee, Semarchy, or considering whether you need a dedicated MDM platform at all, what you don’t have is an independent strategic read grounded in your actual data landscape.
That is what this engagement is.
€15,000. Three to four weeks. Delivered in writing, with a presentation to whoever needs to hear it.
Fixed fee. No implementation work. No commissions. No product recommendations influenced by suppliers.
Why clients commission this review
- The same customer, product, or vendor exists as multiple, slightly different records across systems, and no one owns reconciling them.
- The business is evaluating whether it genuinely needs a dedicated MDM platform, or whether better governance of existing systems would solve the problem.
- A previous data quality initiative stalled because no one had clear ownership of the golden-record definition.
- Growth through acquisition has multiplied the number of overlapping data domains that now need reconciling.
Who this is for
Boards and data leaders wanting an independent strategy for master data management and data quality governance, grounded in the actual data landscape.
Organisations unsure whether they need a dedicated MDM platform or better governance of what they already have.
Who this is not for
Organisations wanting an MDM platform implemented or golden-record logic built. We identify and recommend; we do not implement.
What you receive
The Review tells you three things in writing: how fragmented your master data genuinely is, whether a dedicated platform is warranted, and what to fix first regardless. Five artefacts, delivered together, in plain language.
A data domain fragmentation map. Where the same customer, product, or vendor entity exists across systems, and how inconsistent those records actually are.
A platform-versus-governance assessment. An honest, independent read on whether a dedicated MDM platform is warranted, or whether better process and ownership would solve most of the problem more cheaply.
A proposed golden-record model. A practical model for how the business should define and maintain a single trusted version of key entities going forward.
A prioritised roadmap. What to fix first, second, third, sequenced by business impact.
A board presentation. A one-hour session with your board or data leadership, findings presented, challenged, and discussed in the room.
How the Review runs
Three to four weeks, in four phases: scoping and inventory across systems holding master data, interviews and evidence gathering, synthesis and writing, then presentation and revisions around your board cycle.
Everything is written before it is said. Nothing is presented to your board that you have not read first.
What this is not
An implementation engagement. We identify and recommend; we do not build golden-record logic or configure a platform. Ongoing data governance advisory can be discussed separately as a retainer where the Review surfaces a need for it.
Proof
References available on request.
What happens next
Start a ConversationThirty minutes. We confirm fit, scope, and timing. No proposal is sent unless you ask for one.