Data Governance Explained Framework Benefits and Best Practices

What Problem Does This Article Solve?

The "Fragile Pipeline" Dilemma.
In traditional ERP implementations, data extraction is often built on implicit trust and "tribal knowledge." Developers query SQL views or extract Excel dumps without a formal contract. This works initially but fails catastrophically when the system evolves. When IFS Cloud receives a bi-annual release update (e.g., 25R1), or when a business process changes, these fragile pipelines break because there was no agreed-upon "Interface Contract."

This article provides a rigorous framework for Confirming Sharing Agreements. It solves the problem of ambiguity. It guides Enterprise Architects and Data Owners on how to transition from "sending data" to "serving a product," ensuring that every data exchange is governed by explicit schemas, guaranteed SLAs, and strictly defined semantics. It transforms data from a byproduct of the ERP into a reliable, engineered asset.

Phase 2: The Transition from Concept to Contract

Phase 0 and Phase 1 of an IFS Cloud Data Mesh implementation are primarily strategic. They involve defining the vision, establishing the governance committee, and mapping the high-level domains. Phase 2: The Prototype is where the rubber meets the road. It is the phase where we stop talking about "Manufacturing Data" in the abstract and start building specific, versioned Data Products.

The success of Phase 2 depends entirely on the rigorous confirmation of Sharing Agreements. In the Data Mesh paradigm, data is treated as a product. Just as a physical product like a smartphone comes with a specification sheet, a user manual, and a warranty, a Data Product must come with a Sharing Agreement. This agreement explicitly defines what the consumer can expect and what the producer (the Domain Team) is obligated to deliver.

Why "Confirm" in Prototype?

You might ask, "Why do we need to confirm agreements now? Can't we just build the integration?" The answer lies in the cost of change. Changing a data contract during the Prototype phase costs pennies; changing it once hundreds of reports and AI models depend on it costs thousands.

The "Confirmation" process is a negotiation. It is a dialogue between the Domain Owner (who knows the data's limitations) and the Consumer (who knows the business need). This dialogue often exposes hidden complexities: "You want real-time inventory? We only calculate weighted average cost nightly." Confirming the agreement resolves these discrepancies before code is written.

The "Mock Consumer" Test

A critical activity in Phase 2 is the "Mock Consumer" validation. Before the full integration is built, the Domain Team publishes the Draft Sharing Agreement (often an OpenAPI specification). The Consumer Team then attempts to write code or design a report based strictly on that document, without looking at the underlying database. If they have to ask questions, the agreement is incomplete. This "Clean Room" testing ensures the contract is self-describing and robust.

The Four Pillars of an IFS Cloud Sharing Agreement

A Sharing Agreement is not a vague email promising to "send the spreadsheet." Within the context of IFS Cloud and modern Data Mesh architectures, it is a precise technical and legal construct. To be considered "Confirmed," an agreement must fully address four non-negotiable pillars.

The agreement must rigidly define the data structure. In the IFS Cloud world, this typically relates to the definition of the Entity or the Projection being exposed.

  • Field Definitions: It is not enough to say "Order Amount." The agreement must specify: Is it a Float or Decimal? How many decimal places? If it is a Date, is it ISO 8601 format (YYYY-MM-DD) or a Unix Timestamp?
  • Nullability Contracts: This is the most common cause of integration failure. The agreement must explicitly list which fields are Mandatory (Guaranteed Not Null) and which are Optional. Consumers (like AI models) often crash on unexpected nulls.
  • Enumerations: IFS makes heavy use of "Client" vs "DB" values (e.g., 'Planned' vs '10'). The agreement must confirm which value is exposed. Best practice dictates exposing the readable Client value or providing a lookup map.
  • Versioning Strategy: The agreement must state the versioning policy. "This product is exposed via /v1/ShopOrder. Breaking changes will force a move to /v2/." This protects consumers from the "Evergreen" updates of IFS Cloud.

Data has a temporal dimension. Schema defines what data is; SLOs define when and how it is delivered. A structurally perfect dataset is useless if it arrives 4 hours too late for the morning shipping meeting.

Freshness (Latency)

The agreement must specify the maximum age of the data. "Data in this API reflects transactions up to 5 minutes ago." or "This is a nightly snapshot, refreshed at 02:00 UTC."

Availability (Uptime)

What is the guaranteed uptime? 99.9%? Does the API go down during the IFS Cloud maintenance window? The consumer needs to know to build retry logic.

Retention Policy

How far back does the data go? IFS Cloud operational tables might hold 10 years, but a high-performance API might only serve the "Active" rolling 24 months. This must be codified.

Structure is useless without meaning. The "Semantic Gap" is where business value is lost. The Sharing Agreement must resolve ambiguity using the Business Glossary established in Phase 1.

  • Calculation Logic: If the data product exposes `NetMargin`, how is that calculated? Does it include overhead allocations? Does it account for rebates? The formula must be referenced.
  • State Definitions: What does a status of `Released` actually mean in the Shop Floor Workbench compared to the Planning module?
  • Master Data References: The agreement must confirm that fields like `SiteID` or `CustomerID` reference the corporate standard MDM list, ensuring joinability with other domains.

The agreement must define who can access the product and how that access is controlled via IFS Cloud's security model.

Compliance & PII: If the data contains Personally Identifiable Information (HR data, Customer Contacts), the agreement must state how it is protected. "Employee names are masked for consumers with the `ANALYST_BASIC` role."

Permission Sets: The agreement should specify the IFS Permission Set required to consume the API (e.g., `DATAMESH_FINANCE_READ`).

Usage Constraints: To protect the operational performance of the ERP, the agreement may impose rate limits. "Consumers are limited to 1000 API calls per hour."

Technical Implementation: Codifying the Contract in IFS Cloud

Confirming a sharing agreement is not just a paperwork exercise. In the Prototype Phase, we must implement the agreement technically within the IFS Cloud architecture. We move away from direct SQL access (which is insecure and bypasses business logic) and utilize the native capabilities of the platform to enforce the contract.

Projections & API Explorer

In IFS Cloud, the primary mechanism for a Data Contract is the Projection. The Projection exposes entities via OData/REST APIs.

Implementation: The Domain Owner uses the IFS API Explorer to generate the OpenAPI Specification (OAS) JSON file. This file is the technical contract. It defines every endpoint, data type, and required parameter. The Consumer "signs" the agreement by successfully authenticating (via OAuth2) and parsing this OAS file to build their client.

Data Migration Manager (DMM)

The IFS Data Migration Manager (DMM) is not just for legacy migration; it is a potent validation engine for the Data Mesh.

Implementation: Before data is "Certified" for sharing, it can pass through DMM validation rules. The Sharing Agreement might specify: "ProjectID must exist in the Project Module." DMM enforces this integrity check. If the data fails, it is flagged as "Non-Conforming," protecting the consumer from bad data.

Information Sources

For internal consumers (e.g., users viewing Lobbies or Business Reporter), the Data Product is often an Information Source (IS).

Implementation: The agreement focuses on Performance and Access. "This Lobby Element will load within 2 seconds." Confirming the agreement involves load-testing the underlying IS or Quick Information Source (QIS) to ensure that complex joins do not degrade system performance for other users.

The Negotiation Process: Breaking Silos

Confirming an agreement is a human process as much as a technical one. It involves negotiation between the Domain Owner (Producer), who understands the data's generation and limitations, and the Consumer, who understands the business requirement. In many organizations, these two groups rarely speak the same language. The Prototype Phase forces this dialogue to happen.

The Role of the Governance Committee:
Occasionally, negotiations stall. The Consumer demands 100% real-time data, but the Producer knows this will crash the production server. This is where the Data Governance Committee (established in Phase 0) steps in. They act as the arbitrator, balancing the business value of the request against the technical cost and risk, ultimately ruling on the final terms of the Sharing Agreement.

 

Common Friction Points & Resolutions

Friction Point The Producer's Stance The Resolution (The Agreement)
Data Freshness "Real-time extraction hurts my transactional performance. I can only provide a nightly dump." The agreement specifies Near-Real-Time via IFS Connect / Event streams for critical operational data, and batch processing for historical analysis.
Data Quality "I can't guarantee no nulls in the `Description` field because users leave it blank." The agreement mandates a Transformation Rule: The Producer will replace NULL with "N/A" before publication, so consumer scripts don't break.
History "I only keep the current active year in the main transaction table." The agreement defines a Data Lake storage tier (e.g., Azure Data Lake) where the Domain exports history for the Consumer's long-term trend analysis.

Lifecycle Management: When the Agreement Changes

A Sharing Agreement is not a static artifact; it is a living document. IFS Cloud is an "Evergreen" platform, receiving functional updates twice a year. Business processes change. New regulations (like ESG reporting) emerge.

Therefore, the "Confirmation" process must include a Change Management Protocol.

Deprecation Policy

What happens when a data product is retired? The agreement must specify a "Deprecation Notice Period" (e.g., 6 months). The Producer cannot simply turn off the API; they must notify all registered Consumers and provide a migration path to the new version.

Breaking Changes

If the Producer renames a column or changes a data type, this is a "Breaking Change." The agreement dictates that this triggers a major version increment (e.g., from v1 to v2). The v1 endpoint must remain active and supported for a defined period to allow Consumers to refactor their code.

From Prototype to Production

Once the Schema is validated, the SLOs are tested via the Mock Consumer, and the Security is audited by the CISO, the Sharing Agreement is formally "Confirmed."

What does this mean operationally? It means the Data Product is added to the Enterprise Data Catalog. It moves from a "Lab" status to a "Production" status. The Domain Team is now accountable for supporting it. If the API goes down at 2 AM, the Domain Team (or their designated support arm) is alerted, not central IT. Confirming the agreement in Phase 2 creates the template for the entire organization. It establishes the "Trust Architecture" required to scale from a single pilot to a comprehensive enterprise Data Mesh.

Frequently Asked Questions

This constitutes a "Breaking Change." The Sharing Agreement dictates the strict protocol for this scenario. Typically, the Domain Owner is required to maintain the old version of the API (v1) while simultaneously publishing the new structure as (v2). They must provide a formal "Deprecation Notice" to all registered Consumers (usually 3-6 months) to allow them sufficient time to update their integrations. The Data Mesh governance framework prevents the Owner from simply overwriting v1 and breaking downstream consumers.

While specialized "Data Catalog" or "Data Contract" software platforms exist (such as Collibra, Alation, or Atlan), they are not strictly necessary for the Prototype Phase. Simple, accessible tools often work best initially. A version-controlled repository (like Git) containing the OpenAPI specifications (YAML/JSON) and a Markdown document describing the SLAs is sufficient. The critical factors are version control, discoverability, and accessibility, rather than purchasing expensive new software immediately.

IFS Cloud releases functional updates twice a year (e.g., 25R1, 25R2). These updates can occasionally modify the underlying Core Projections or database views. The Sharing Agreement places the burden of stability on the Domain Owner. They must perform regression testing on their Data Products against the Release Candidates. They must ensure that the "Public" interface defined in the agreement remains stable for consumers, even if they have to adjust the internal mapping or logic to accommodate the changes in the IFS platform.

At a minimum, the agreement requires the sign-off of the Domain Owner (Producer) and the Lead Consumer. However, for critical enterprise data sets (such as Master Data, Financials, or HR), the Data Governance Lead and the Security Architect should also act as signatories. This ensures that the agreement complies with enterprise-wide standards for security, naming conventions, and regulatory compliance (GDPR/SOX).

Technically yes, but the primary value of the Data Mesh architecture comes from inter-domain sharing. Internal data usage (e.g., a Manufacturing report used by a Manufacturing planner) usually does not require the formal rigidity of a Sharing Agreement because the producer and consumer are often on the same team or report to the same manager. These agreements are specifically designed to bridge the boundaries between domains, where communication gaps and misaligned priorities usually cause integration failures.

Metadata is the "label on the can." It makes the data product discoverable. The Sharing Agreement should mandate specific metadata tags (e.g., Domain Name, Data Classification, Refresh Rate, Owner Contact Info). This allows the Data Product to be indexed by the Enterprise Data Catalog, allowing other users in the organization to find the data they need without sending emails to IT to ask "where is the sales data?"
Enterprise Architecture for Data Governance: IFS ERP Best Practices

Enterprise Architecture for Data Governance: IFS ERP Best Practices

What Problem Does This Article Solve?

Bridging the Gap Between Strategy and «IT Problems.»
Many CEOs, CFOs, and COOs view data quality as a technical nuisance to be «fixed» by the IT department. This mindset results in repeated cycles of expensive data cleansing projects that fail to stick. This article solves the Strategic Disconnect by:

  • Redefining data governance as a P&L imperative rather than a compliance checklist.
  • Providing a roadmap for non-technical executives to lead data initiatives without getting bogged down in SQL queries.
  • Explaining specifically why your AI strategy will fail without a fixed Data Layer.
  • Offering a structured, «Boil the Ocean» avoidance strategy for implementation in complex ERP environments like IFS Cloud.

Introduction: The Invisible Layer That Define Your Future

When enterprise architects delineate the structure of a digital organization, they often speak in terms of «layers.» There is the Infrastructure Layer (cloud, servers), the Application Layer (ERP, CRM, WMS), and the Presentation Layer (dashboards, mobile apps). Executives generally feel comfortable approving budgets for these. You can «see» a new warehouse management system; you can «touch» a new mobile app. However, sitting quietly between the applications and the infrastructure is the Data Layer.

Executives often dismiss this layer as technical jargon — a «database thing» for the CIO to manage. This is a strategic error of the highest magnitude. The Data Layer is not about storage capacity or server speeds; it is the semantic definition of your business. It is the agreed-upon truth of what constitutes a «Customer,» how a «Product» is defined across borders, and the hierarchy of «Suppliers» that feed your supply chain.

In an era where every company strives to be «data-driven,» the irony is that most organizations are actually «application-driven.» They buy a CRM to fix sales and an ERP to fix finance, creating silos where data goes to die. The strength of the Data Layer influences every major metric a CEO cares about: growth velocity, resilience against market shocks, speed of M&A execution, and — most critically in the 2020s — readiness for Artificial Intelligence.

Neglecting the Data Layer creates a build-up of «technical debt» that eventually manifests as silent risks. It isn’t a server crash; it’s the acquisition that fails to deliver synergies because customer lists couldn’t be merged. It isn’t a software bug; it’s the AI chatbot creating hallucinations because it was trained on contradictory product manuals. Executives who grasp the materiality of the Data Layer transform their organizations into agile, scalable enterprises. Those who don’t remain trapped in a cycle of manual reconciliation and reactive firefighting.

The Hidden Costs of Weak Data Governance

The cost of poor data quality is rarely a line item on the P&L, making it dangerous because it is invisible to standard financial reporting. It hides in the «SG&A» line as excessive headcount required to fix billing errors. It hides in «COGS» as expedited shipping fees to correct phantom inventory issues. Let us dissect where these costs manifest.

The M&A Synergy Trap

Consider a global manufacturer that completed a $500M acquisition. The investment thesis relied on cross-selling products to the combined customer base. Six months post-close, a critical question arose: «How many unique customers do we actually serve?»

Finance had one list based on billing entities. Sales had another based on CRM relationships. Operations tracked «ship-to» addresses as customers. The result? Three different numbers, none of them actionable. The integration was delayed by 18 months as teams manually mapped spreadsheets. The «Data Layer» was broken, and with it, the promised synergies of the deal evaporated.

The AI Hallucination Engine

A retail chain invested heavily in a Generative AI recommendation engine to personalize marketing. They fed the model their historical transaction data. However, 30% of their product master data was obsolete, duplicated, or lacked critical attributes like «seasonality.»

The AI amplified these inaccuracies. It recommended winter coats in July and flagged phantom inventory as available for sale, leading to thousands of cancelled orders. Competitors who had spent years curating their Data Layer moved ahead, training models on a «Golden Record» of truth. The lesson is brutal: AI amplifies whatever it is fed. If you feed it chaos, it scales chaos at the speed of light.

The «1−10−100» Rule of Data

Management theorists often cite the 1−10−100 rule. It costs $1 to verify a record is correct at the point of entry (The Data Layer). It costs $10 to clean it later when a batch process fails. It costs $100 (or more) when that bad data reaches the customer — in the form of a wrong shipment, a failed invoice, or a regulatory fine. A weak Data Layer ensures your organization is perpetually spending $100 to fix $1 problems.

The Executive View: Why the Data Layer Matters

The Data Layer acts as the corporate nervous system. It connects the brain (Strategy) to the hands (Operations). When this layer is severed or degraded, the organization suffers from a form of corporate neuropathy — signals are sent but not received, or received incorrectly.

Symptoms of a Weak Data Layer

  • Decision Paralysis: Executive meetings turn into arguments about whose spreadsheet is correct rather than deciding on strategy. «Is revenue up 5% or down 2%?» depends on which system you ask.
  • Integration Chaos: Every new software implementation (e.g., IFS Cloud, Salesforce) goes over budget because 40% of the timeline is spent scrubbing legacy data that was assumed to be clean.
  • AI Blind Spots: Predictive maintenance models fail because «Asset ID 123» in the maintenance system is «Machine B» in the SCADA system. The link is missing.
  • Hidden Inefficiencies: Procurement loses volume discounts because «ACME Corp,» «ACME Inc,» and «A.C.M.E. Ltd» are treated as three separate suppliers.

Outcomes of a Strong Data Layer

  • One Version of Truth: A semantic layer that translates data across systems. When you say «Gross Margin,» the system understands exactly which GL accounts and cost buckets comprise it.
  • Change Resilience: When acquiring a company, you simply map their data to your standard Data Layer. Integration takes weeks, not years.
  • Trusted AI: Models trained on accurate, governed data accelerate decision-making with high confidence intervals.
  • Margin Defense: By eliminating duplicate payments, optimizing inventory visibility, and reducing returns due to bad product data, you directly protect the bottom line.
Strategic Infrastructure: It is time to stop viewing data cleaning as «optional hygiene.» It is strategic infrastructure, just like your fiber optics or your logistics fleet. You wouldn’t run a logistics fleet with trucks that have no fuel gauges. Why run a business with data that has no definitions?

How to Lead Without Boiling the Ocean

The most common reason executives avoid data governance is the fear of bureaucracy. They envision committees, 500-page manuals, and «Business Prevention Teams» that slow down agility. This is the old way of thinking. Modern data governance is agile, federated, and focused on value.

The key is to avoid the «Big Bang» approach. Do not try to fix every data field in the ERP system simultaneously. Instead, prioritize ruthlessly.

1. Pick Your Domains

Not all data is created equal. Focus on the Master Data domains that drive value: Customers, Products, Suppliers, and Employees/​Assets. Ignore the low-value transactional noise for now. If you fix the Customer Master, every sales order, invoice, and support ticket linked to it improves automatically.

2. Assign Business Ownership

This is the golden rule: IT does not own the data; IT owns the container. The Business owns the content.

  • The CFO owns Customer & Vendor Financial data.
  • The CMO owns Customer Contact data.
  • The COO owns Product & Asset data.
Executives must enforce this accountability.
3. Map the Mess

Perform a high-level data topology. Where does your data reside? Is it in the IFS Cloud ERP? Is it in spreadsheets on a shared drive? Is it in a legacy Salesforce instance? This exercise often reveals «Shadow IT» — critical business data living in Excel files that are one hard drive crash away from extinction.

4. Set Fit-for-Purpose Standards

Aim for practical improvements over academic perfection. You don’t need a 100% complete record for every prospect. But for a generic Customer, you might mandate: «Name, Tax ID, and Payment Terms are non-negotiable.» Use the Pareto Principle: fix the 20% of data that drives 80% of your business processes.

5. Connect to Business Value

Never launch a «Data Quality Project.» Launch a «Margin Optimization Project» powered by data. Tie improvements to the P&L. «By cleaning Supplier terms, we will capture $2M in early payment discounts.» This keeps the board engaged and funding flowing.

A Real-World Success Story: Omnichannel Transformation

Unified Data Architecture Diagram

A prominent European retail group faced an existential threat from digital-first competitors. They possessed data, but it was fractured: e‑commerce ran on a modern cloud stack, physical stores ran on a 20-year-old legacy ERP, and the loyalty app was a siloed third-party SaaS.

They avoided a massive, bureaucratic «data governance program.» Instead, the CEO issued a single, focused mandate: «By next quarter, every channel will recognize the same Customer ID.»

This «North Star» goal forced the dismantling of silos.

  • Finance agreed to standardize billing addresses.
  • Marketing agreed to merge duplicate profiles.
  • IT built an API layer (the technical manifestation of the Data Layer) to serve this unique ID.

The Results:
They achieved a 15% reduction in marketing spend purely by eliminating duplicate catalog mailings to the same households. Customer satisfaction scores (NPS) rose by 8 points because support agents could finally see online orders and store purchases in one view. Later, when they rolled out predictive AI engines for inventory planning, the models worked instantly because the underlying sales history was clean and consistent. They didn’t just clean data; they unlocked growth.

Technical Implementation in Modern ERPs (IFS Cloud Context)

For organizations running modern platforms like IFS Cloud, the tools to build a robust Data Layer are built-in, but often underutilized. It is not necessary to buy expensive third-party Master Data Management (MDM) software immediately.

Historically used only for one-time migrations, modern DMM tools in IFS Cloud can be used for continuous validation. You can set up «Smart Data» rules that constantly check the health of your Master Data against defined standards, flagging violations before they corrupt your ledger.

Executives love dashboards. Why not build a «Data Health Lobby»? Create visual indicators for «Customers missing Tax IDs,» «Products with Zero Weight defined,» or «Suppliers with Expired Contracts.» This gamifies data quality and makes the invisible Data Layer visible to management.

A strong Data Layer exposes data via standardized APIs (RESTful services) rather than direct database access. This ensures that any system consuming your data (be it a website, a 3PL logistics provider, or an AI bot) receives the governed, secure, and validated «Golden Record» rather than raw, messy table data.

Executive Takeaway: Own the Data Layer

The Data Layer is not an IT problem — it is the digital backbone of your business model. It is the constraint on your growth and the enabler of your innovation.

Executives who delegate this without understanding the task risk presiding over failed acquisitions, investing in weak AI strategies, and tolerating hidden inefficiencies that bleed margins. Conversely, those who own the Data Layer—who align data health with business outcomes and enforce accountability — create enterprises that scale faster, adapt better to market shocks, and innovate with confidence.

Ignoring the Data Layer means risking competitive disadvantage. Your rivals are already using clean, governed data to outthink and outmaneuver you. The time to act is now.

Frequently Asked Questions

The Data Layer is the architectural level where business data is defined, governed, stored, and integrated. Unlike the Application Layer (which processes data) or the Infrastructure Layer (which stores bits), the Data Layer concerns the *meaning* and *integrity* of assets like Customer, Product, and Supplier information. It is the foundation of a company’s digital backbone.

It directly impacts the speed and accuracy of strategic decisions. Weak data governance leads to «Decision Paralysis» (debating numbers), failed M&A integrations (incompatible systems), and wasted AI investments. A strong Data Layer acts as a margin defense mechanism and an accelerator for innovation.

In M&A, weak governance prevents the merging of customer bases and supply chains, delaying synergy realization. In AI, poor data quality (duplicates, obsolete records) leads to model hallucinations and incorrect predictions. AI amplifies the quality of the data it is fed; it cannot fix bad data on its own.

Avoid «Boiling the Ocean.» Start small by selecting high-value domains (e.g., Customer or Product). Assign clear business ownership (not just IT). Map where the data lives, set «fit-for-purpose» standards focusing on the critical 20% of data, and link every data improvement to a tangible financial outcome.

Data Ownership ensures accountability. Without it, data is seen as «IT’s problem.» Business leaders (CFO, CMO, COO) must own the data definitions and quality within their domains because they understand the business context. IT acts as the custodian, but the business acts as the owner.

IFS Cloud provides native tools to support the Data Layer, including the Data Migration Manager (for validation rules), Lobby elements (for visualizing data quality KPIs), and a robust API structure (Projections) to ensure data integrity during integration.
Governance Cadence: Sustaining Accountability Beyond Vendor Promises

Vendors Promise Magic, Then Vanish at Risk: Why You Need a Governance Cadence That Holds Firm

Enterprise software vendors are experts at dazzling pitches. Shiny demos, smooth promises of “seamless transformation,” and assurances of low risk often mask the realities that follow: costly surprises, unfulfilled expectations, and an operational team left holding the burden when things go wrong. In these moments, governance—not vendor rhetoric—determines whether organizations recover, sustain value, or spiral into costly firefighting.

The remedy is not to distrust technology altogether, nor to demand impossible guarantees from vendors. Instead, it lies in adopting a governance cadence that holds firm—a repeatable rhythm of oversight, accountability, and strategic steering that ensures that promises made at the start remain aligned with outcomes over time.

Why Vendors Disappear When Risk Appears

  • Hand-offs over accountability: Implementation consultants and sales teams often leave once the product is live, while end-users are left without adequate support.
  • Black-box complexity: Vendors may keep control of key processes and limit visibility, making governance hard to enforce.
  • Risk transfer: Promises of “magic” fade when risks emerge—security incidents, data quality issues, or performance concerns—because ownership wasn’t clearly defined up front.

This risk asymmetry means enterprises must own their cadence: a governance backbone too steady to bend when external actors vanish.

Recipes to Adopt a Governance Cadence That Holds Firm

1. Anchor Risk Ownership in a RACI Grid

  • Map roles and responsibilities using a RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) model.
  • Assign Accountable roles inside your organization for critical governance domains (permissions, data quality, change control), not to the vendor.
  • Review and refresh this mapping quarterly, so no area drifts into “vendor-only visibility.”

2. Institute Governance SteerCos With a Drumbeat

  • Run monthly steering committees with executives, IT leads, and business process owners.
  • Agenda: review KPIs, exceptions, pending risks, and vendor performance against service-level expectations.
  • Rotate chairpersons to prevent a single group (e.g., IT-only) from dominating governance narratives.

3. Create a Change & Exception Register

  • Establish a central log (SharePoint, Jira, Confluence, or even a lightweight spreadsheet) tracking all changes, incidents, and exceptions.
  • Tag each item with “Who ruled on it? When? Outcome?” to provide governance memory and prevent re-litigation.
  • Revisit the register in quarterly reviews to identify recurring patterns.

4. Build Data Governance Rituals

  • Adopt data quality checkpoints on a fixed schedule (weekly for operational systems, monthly for analytical systems).
  • Define non-negotiable guardrails: duplicate supplier records above 2%? Must trigger a governance review.
  • Allow the cadence to expose noncompliance early—before vendors or external auditors do.

5. Publish a Governance Digest

  • Summarize governance actions monthly: key risks acknowledged, mitigations accepted, escalations raised.
  • Circulate across stakeholders, not just IT. This broadens organizational memory and pressures vendors to match accountability.
  • Use plain language; avoid letting governance degrade into unread reports.

6. Run “Fire Drill” Reviews With Vendors

  • Twice a year, simulate a breakdown or incident, and test how governance responds.
  • Measure how quickly vendors reply, but also how decisively internal teams escalate.
  • Treat weak vendor performance as data for renegotiation, not as an unexpected surprise.

The Virtue of Cadence

Technology governance is much like fitness: random bursts cannot replace consistent training. Vendors may vanish the moment risk emerges—but if your cadence is steady, the organization has pre-baked actions and accountability already in motion.

The firms that survive ERP upgrades, security shocks, or vendor churn are not those that bought the flashiest demos. They are those who are committed to a rhythm of governance that never skips a beat.

 

Metadata Management in IFS Cloud

Metadata Management and Best Practices for Data Governance

Who This Guide Is For

This content is intended for IFS Cloud users, data stewards, metadata managers, ERP administrators, and business intelligence professionals seeking to optimize data governance through effective metadata management strategies in IFS Cloud. If you are asking, “How do I manage metadata in IFS Cloud?”, “What tools are best for IFS Cloud metadata cataloging?”, or “How does metadata support data governance in ERP systems?”, this guide addresses those questions comprehensively.

What Problem It Solves

Managing metadata effectively is essential for ensuring data integrity, compliance, discoverability, and usability within complex ERP environments. This guide outlines how to implement, enrich, and maintain metadata in IFS Cloud to solve challenges such as data silos, lack of data clarity, and governance compliance gaps.

What is Metadata Management in IFS Cloud?

Metadata management in IFS Cloud refers to the processes and tools that enable organizations to register, scan, classify, enrich, and maintain metadata for their business data assets stored within IFS Cloud Oracle databases and connected external data sources.

Why Metadata Management Matters

  • Ensures data discoverability for business users and technical teams

  • Supports regulatory compliance by tagging sensitive or private data correctly

  • Enhances data quality and consistency across systems

  • Facilitates data governance programs by maintaining clear data definitions and ownership

  • Enables efficient data analysis by providing meaningful context and classifications to data assets

Key Features of Metadata Management in IFS Cloud

1. Register & Scan Data Sources

  • Supports scanning and registering multiple data sources like Oracle Databases, cloud storage, blob storage, data lakes, and on-premises repositories.

  • Uses customized classifications and industry-specific glossary terms to enrich metadata, distinguishing IFS metadata from generic catalogs.

2. Enrichment with IFS-Specific Metadata

  • Utilizes pre-loaded IFS-specific metadata from dictionaries and glossaries for better data asset descriptions.

  • Allows users to modify asset names, add descriptions, update classifications, and assign glossary terms.

3. Classification & Sensitivity Tagging

  • Automatically classify data assets based on metadata attributes discovered during scans.

  • Manually refine classifications to ensure accuracy, especially for sensitive and private data, improving compliance posture.

4. Search & Browse Metadata Assets

  • Comprehensive search and browsing capabilities through the IFS Cloud Web interface make metadata easily accessible.

  • Users can quickly locate relevant data assets, evaluate their suitability, and make data-driven decisions.

5. Metadata Asset Management

  • Edit asset properties such as descriptions, schemas, and ownership.

  • Assign “experts” and “owners” within the organization to maintain accountability and data stewardship.

Real-World Use Cases & Questions Answered

Use Case 1: Ensuring Accurate Data Discovery for Reporting

A BI analyst needs to quickly find definitions and classifications of sales data for dashboard creation. Using IFS Cloud’s metadata catalog, they can locate the assets, review enriched descriptions and glossary terms, accelerating report generation.

Use Case 2: Compliance with Data Privacy Regulations

Compliance officers use metadata classification features to tag sensitive customer information and automate alerts, reducing risks of non-compliance with GDPR or similar mandates.

Use Case 3: Coordinating Data Ownership in Large Organizations

Data stewards assign ownership and experts for metadata assets ensuring ongoing accuracy, eliminating confusion over data responsibility.

Typical Questions

  • How do I register new data sources in IFS Cloud’s data catalog?

  • What are best practices for classifying sensitive ERP data?

  • How can metadata management improve my ERP reporting accuracy?

Related Keywords and Concepts

  • IFS Cloud Data Catalog

  • Metadata enrichment and classification

  • Data governance in ERP

  • Data asset ownership and stewardship

  • Metadata-driven compliance

  • ERP data discovery tools

These keywords match common user questions and search intents, such as:

  • “How to implement metadata management in IFS Cloud?”

  • “Best tools for ERP metadata cataloging and governance”

  • “How does metadata improve data compliance in business systems?”

Why IFS Cloud is a Strong Choice for Metadata Management

IFS Cloud’s metadata management capabilities are tightly integrated with its ERP platform, meaning organizations benefit from:

  • Up-to-date, context-rich metadata tailored for IFS business processes

  • Scalable cloud-native design supporting hybrid data environments

  • Seamless integration with data governance and BI tools

  • User-friendly interfaces for both technical and business users

  • Continuous enhancements aligned with evolving data regulations

Summary

Effective metadata management in IFS Cloud empowers organizations to overcome data discovery challenges, ensure regulatory compliance, and maintain high-quality, governed data assets. By utilizing features such as scalable data source scanning, IFS-specific metadata enrichment, sensitive data classification, and collaborative stewardship, data managers and ERP administrators can unlock better business insights and safeguard their information ecosystem.

Mastering metadata in IFS Cloud is essential for any organization aiming to optimize data governance and maximize the value of their ERP data assets in today’s complex digital landscape.

The New Blueprint for ERP Data Excellence

The New Blueprint for ERP Data Excellence

The New Blueprint for ERP Data Excellence

Key Takeaway: The synergy of data governance, master data management (MDM), data quality, and metadata management is the backbone of successful ERP implementations. Organizations that master these pillars avoid costly failures and unlock sustained ROI, operational agility, and strategic advantage.

Introduction: Why ERP Data Governance Matters

In today’s digital-first world, ERP systems are the backbone of enterprises, integrating everything from finance and supply chain to HR and customer operations. But here’s the hard truth: Your ERP is only as good as the data it runs on.

Poor data governance doesn’t just cause inefficiencies—it leads to multi-million-dollar disasters. Take Revlon’s 2018 SAP ERP rollout, where inadequate governance resulted in $70.3 million in losses, halted production, and unfulfilled orders. Meanwhile, companies with robust data governance frameworks report up to $15 million in annual savings and a 70% reduction in user acceptance testing (UAT) cycles through automation.

ERP Data Governance ROI (2023–2025)
Metric Value
Organizations achieving ERP ROI 80%–83%
Cost savings from data governance $15M/year
Reduction in UAT cycles (automation) 70%
Reduction in post-go-live tickets 40%

Here’s a question to ponder: If data is the new oil, why are so many ERP projects still running on contaminated fuel?

The Four Pillars of ERP Data Excellence

To build a future-proof ERP system, you need to master these four interconnected pillars:

  1. Data Governance: Strategic oversight, policy enforcement, and accountability for data assets. In ERP, governance ensures alignment between business goals and system configuration, driving compliance and risk mitigation.
  2. Master Data Management (MDM): Centralized management of core entities like customers, products, and suppliers. MDM eliminates silos and ensures consistency across ERP modules.
  3. Data Quality Management: Continuous monitoring and improvement of data accuracy, completeness, and reliability. Poor data quality in ERP systems leads to operational chaos.
  4. Metadata Management: Contextualizing data with lineage, definitions, and usage tracking. Metadata supports auditability, compliance, and seamless integration.

These pillars don’t work in isolation. They interact hierarchically (governance sets standards) and cyclically (quality and metadata drive improvements).

The Four Pillars of ERP Data Excellence

Figure 1: How data governance, MDM, data quality, and metadata management interact in ERP systems.

Case Studies: ERP Data Governance in Action

Manufacturing: Revlon’s SAP Crisis

  • Challenge: Siloed master data, lack of governance, and poor data quality led to operational collapse.
  • Solution: Centralized MDM, automated validation, and continuous quality monitoring.
  • Outcome: Improved data accuracy, fewer disruptions, and faster ROI.

Financial Services: Cross-Module SAP S/4HANA Integration

  • Challenge: Complex regulatory requirements and fragmented data ownership.
  • Solution: Comprehensive governance framework with clear ownership, standardized definitions, and automated compliance checks.
  • Outcome: Enhanced compliance, reduced manual reconciliation, and faster financial close cycles.
ERP Governance ROI and Case Study Comparison

Figure 2: ERP governance ROI, cost of poor data, and automation benefits.

Technical Implementation: From Theory to Practice

SAP S/4HANA

Use SAP Master Data Governance (MDG) to:

  • Centralize master data domains (e.g., products, customers).
  • Configure Fiori-based workflows for approvals and validation.
  • Integrate with SAP Data Services for cleansing and enrichment.
  • Automate data quality checks and archiving.
IF customer_email IS INITIAL.
    RAISE error 'Customer email is required for master data creation'.
ENDIF.

Oracle ERP

Leverage tools like Oracle Data Relationship Governance (DRG) and Oracle Enterprise Metadata Manager (OEMM) to:

  • Automate change request approvals.
  • Harvest and catalog metadata.
  • Enforce security and compliance with Oracle Data Safe.

Data Migration Challenges

Avoid these pitfalls:

  • Skipping legacy data cleansing and deduplication.
  • Ignoring ERP-specific business rules during validation.
  • Manual mapping and transformation (use automated tools).

Automation Opportunities

  • AI-driven anomaly detection: Flag and correct data issues in real time.
  • Robotic Process Automation (RPA): Automate repetitive governance tasks.
  • Real-time compliance monitoring: Generate audit trails automatically.

Future Trends in ERP Data Governance

AI and Machine Learning

  • Automated data quality: AI models detect and fix anomalies.
  • Predictive risk management: Machine learning anticipates compliance risks.
  • Generative AI: Chatbots automate report generation and user support.

Cloud-Native and Multi-Cloud Strategies

  • Unified governance: Centralized frameworks for consistent quality across cloud providers.
  • Observability: Real-time monitoring of data flows and governance metrics.

Federated Governance and Data Mesh

  • Decentralized ownership: Empower domain teams while maintaining global standards.
  • Real-time governance: By 2030, expect self-healing, AI-driven governance embedded in ERP workflows.

Food for thought: Will humans or AI manage ERP data governance in the future?

Your 24-Month ERP Data Governance Roadmap

Step 1: Assess Your Maturity

Use this five-level maturity model to benchmark your current state:

Level Description ERP Impact
1. Unaware No formal governance, ad-hoc processes High risk, frequent issues
2. Aware Basic policies, minimal coordination Inconsistent quality, moderate risk
3. Defined Documented processes, clear roles Improved consistency, controlled
4. Managed Integrated, automated, monitored High quality, optimized ROI
5. Optimized AI-driven, predictive, self-healing Strategic advantage, real-time
24-Month ERP Data Governance Roadmap

Figure 3: 24-month roadmap with milestones, success metrics, and technology decisions.

Key Milestones

  • Months 1–4: Foundation (team formation, assessment, tool selection).
  • Months 5–8: Design & Build (architecture, standards, pilot setup).
  • Months 9–16: Implementation (deployment, migration, training, automation).
  • Months 17–24: Optimization (monitoring, analytics, AI/ML integration).

Success Metrics

Track these KPIs every 6 months:

  • Data quality score
  • Policy compliance rate
  • User adoption
  • Process automation
  • ROI achievement

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. What is ERP data governance?

ERP data governance is a framework for managing the availability, usability, integrity, and security of data in ERP systems. It ensures data is consistent, trustworthy, and aligned with business goals.

2. Why do ERP projects fail without data governance?

Without governance, ERP projects suffer from poor data quality, siloed information, compliance risks, and operational inefficiencies. This leads to cost overruns, delays, and failed implementations.

3. How does MDM improve ERP performance?

MDM centralizes and standardizes master data (e.g., customers, products), eliminating duplicates and inconsistencies. This improves reporting, analytics, and cross-departmental collaboration.

4. What are the signs of poor data quality in ERP?

Common signs include:

  • Inaccurate reports and dashboards.
  • Frequent manual workarounds.
  • High volumes of post-go-live support tickets.
  • Regulatory compliance issues.
5. How can AI improve ERP data governance?

AI automates data quality checks, detects anomalies, predicts risks, and even generates compliance reports. It reduces manual effort and improves accuracy.

6. What tools are best for ERP data governance?

Top tools include:

  • SAP MDG (for SAP environments).
  • Oracle DRG (for Oracle ERP).
  • Informatica (data quality and integration).
  • Collibra (data governance platform).
  • Microsoft Purview (unified data governance).
7. How long does it take to implement ERP data governance?

Implementation timelines vary, but a structured 24-month roadmap is typical for full maturity. Quick wins (e.g., data cleansing, basic MDM) can be achieved in 3–6 months.

8. How do I get executive buy-in for data governance?

Focus on ROI. Highlight cost savings, risk reduction, and strategic advantages like faster decision-making and competitive differentiation.

9. What’s the biggest mistake companies make in ERP data governance?

Treating governance as a one-time project rather than an ongoing process. Successful governance requires continuous monitoring, improvement, and cultural adoption.

10. Can small businesses benefit from ERP data governance?

Absolutely. While the scale differs, the principles remain the same. Start with basic policies, clear ownership, and automated data quality checks.

Conclusion: Turn ERP Data into Your Competitive Advantage

Data governance isn’t just about avoiding risks—it’s about unlocking the full potential of your ERP investment. Organizations that embed governance into their ERP strategy achieve:

  • Higher ROI and cost savings.
  • Faster, more accurate decision-making.
  • Seamless compliance and audit readiness.
  • Operational agility and innovation.

Ready to Transform Your ERP Data?

Book a Free ERP Data Governance Assessment or download our 24-month roadmap template to get started.

Avoiding Hidden Fault Lines in ERP: How Data Mesh Governance Prevents the Next Big Failure

ERP Disasters Prevention

ERP implementations are notorious for their high failure rates, often resulting in lost revenue, reputational damage, and operational disruptions. The root cause is rarely the technology itself. Instead, failures stem from fragmented governance, where teams operate in silos, customize modules independently, and neglect cross-functional alignment. This article explores how Data Mesh—a decentralized yet federated approach to data ownership—can prevent these disasters by enforcing clear contracts, automated policies, and collaborative governance.

The Hidden Costs of ERP Silos

In 1999, Hershey’s ERP go-live became a cautionary tale. Despite investing in SAP, the company lost an estimated US $100 million in unfulfilled orders and experienced an 8% drop in share price. The issue wasn’t the software’s capability but the lack of cohesive governance. Finance, supply chain, and HR teams customized their modules in isolation, leading to brittle integrations and operational breakdowns.

This scenario is far from unique. Many ERP projects struggle because they focus on technological integration while overlooking human and process-related challenges. Without a unified governance framework, even the most advanced ERP systems can exacerbate silos rather than eliminate them.

Introducing Data Mesh A New Governance Paradigm

Data Mesh, introduced by Zhamak Dehghani, redefines data ownership by treating it as a product. Domains such as finance, logistics, and HR retain autonomy over their data but adhere to enterprise-wide standards through

  • Self-serve data infrastructure – Empowers teams to access and manage data without centralized bottlenecks.
  • Federated computational governance – Ensures consistency through shared contracts, service-level agreements (SLAs), and automated policy enforcement.

Unlike traditional ERP models, Data Mesh embeds governance into the data lifecycle, preventing fragmentation while preserving agility.

ERP Pitfalls and Data Mesh Solutions

The following table compares common ERP failures with their Data Mesh counterparts and the governance antidotes that mitigate risks

Classic ERP Failure Data Mesh Risk Governance Solution
Over-customized modules create brittle integrations Domains publish inconsistent schemas and quality metrics Universal product contracts – Standardized SLAs for data lineage, freshness, and privacy.
Integration testing is deferred until late in the project Data products launch without downstream validation Shift-left contract testing – Validates data products early in the CI/CD pipeline.
Training focuses on module features, not end-to-end workflows Teams optimize locally, ignoring enterprise KPIs Cross-domain architecture reviews – Aligns initiatives with company-wide objectives.
One-off fixes increase maintenance costs Duplicate datasets proliferate Central catalog with reuse incentives – Encourages a "build once, share everywhere" culture.

Case Studies Data Mesh in Action

Early adopters of Data Mesh have demonstrated its potential to transform ERP governance

  • ING Bank implemented an eight-week proof-of-concept that enabled domain teams to build self-serve data products on a governed platform. The result was faster time-to-market for insights and improved compliance.
  • Intuit found that nearly 50% of data workers’ time was wasted searching for data owners and definitions. By adopting Data Mesh, they reduced discovery friction and created a network effect of reuse across thousands of tables.

These organizations reported shorter validation cycles, lower storage costs, and more transparent audit trails—outcomes that traditional ERP implementations often struggle to achieve.

Four Steps to Mesh-Ready Governance

Implementing Data Mesh governance requires a structured approach. The following four steps provide a framework for success

  1. Codify the Contract

    Publish canonical data models (e.g., customer, invoice, shipment) with versioned SLAs and dashboards visible to all teams. This ensures consistency and transparency.

  2. Automate Policy as Code

    Embed governance directly into CI/CD pipelines. Automate lineage capture, PII masking, and quality gates to eliminate manual errors and accelerate deployments.

  3. Appoint Integration Champions

    Rotate enterprise architects or senior analysts into domain teams to act as diplomats for cross-functional reuse. This breaks down silos and fosters collaboration.

  4. Measure the Mesh

    Track key metrics such as lead time from data request to insight, rework hours saved, and incident resolution speed. Celebrate improvements to the network, not just individual modules.

Executive Takeaways Balancing Autonomy and Cohesion

For executives, the message is clear Domain autonomy without enterprise glue risks recreating ERP silos in a cloud-native environment. To avoid this, treat federated governance as critical infrastructure

  • Fund governance initiatives like R&D projects, with dedicated budgets and resources.
  • Hold leaders accountable for both local agility and global coherence.
  • Invest in tools and training to support automated policy enforcement and cross-domain collaboration.

Action Item At your next executive meeting, audit the three datasets underpinning your highest-stakes initiatives. If any lack a named owner, published contract, or automated enforcement, prioritize governance investments to prevent fragmentation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why do ERP projects fail even with advanced technology?

ERP projects often fail due to siloed decision-making and poor governance, not technological limitations. Teams customize modules independently, leading to misaligned processes and integration gaps. Data Mesh addresses this by enforcing federated governance and clear ownership.

How does Data Mesh differ from traditional ERP governance?

Data Mesh decentralizes data ownership while centralizing governance through shared contracts, SLAs, and automated policies. Traditional ERP governance relies on rigid, top-down structures that often create bottlenecks and silos.

What tools are essential for implementing Data Mesh?

Key tools include CI/CD pipelines for automation, data catalogs for discovery and reuse, and policy-as-code frameworks to enforce compliance. Examples include Jenkins for pipelines, Collibra for catalogs, and OpenPolicyAgent for governance.

How long does it take to implement Data Mesh governance?

A pilot project typically takes 8 to 12 weeks. Full-scale adoption depends on organizational complexity but generally spans 6 to 12 months. The timeline can be shortened with strong executive sponsorship and cross-functional collaboration.

What are the measurable benefits of Data Mesh governance?

Organizations report shorter model-validation cycles, lower duplicate-storage costs, and improved audit trails. For example, ING Bank accelerated time-to-market for insights, while Intuit reduced data discovery friction by nearly 50%.

How can executives ensure successful Data Mesh adoption?

Executives should treat federated governance as critical infrastructure. This includes funding it like an R&D initiative, appointing integration champions, and holding leaders accountable for both local agility and global coherence.

Implementing IFS Cloud Master Data as Data Contracts: Enabling Data Mesh in Modern ERP Systems

1. Introduction to IFS Cloud and Master Data Management

IFS Cloud: Modular, Composable, and API-Driven

IFS Cloud is a next-generation enterprise resource planning (ERP) platform designed to meet the evolving needs of modern organizations. Its architecture is fundamentally modular, allowing organizations to deploy only the components they need—such as finance, supply chain, HR, CRM, and asset management—while maintaining seamless integration across business functions. This modularity is underpinned by a composable system, where digital assets and functionalities can be assembled and reassembled as business requirements change. The platform’s API-driven approach, featuring 100% open APIs, ensures interoperability with third-party systems and supports agile integration strategies. This enables organizations to extend, customize, and scale their ERP landscape efficiently, leveraging RESTful APIs, preconfigured connectors, and support for industry-standard data exchange protocols (EDI, XML, JSON, MQTT, SOAP) .

The Role of Master Data Management (MDM) in IFS Cloud

Master Data Management (MDM) is central to IFS Cloud’s value proposition. MDM ensures that critical business data—such as customer, supplier, product, and asset information—is accurate, consistent, and governed across all modules and integrated systems. By establishing a single source of truth, MDM eliminates data silos, reduces redundancies, and enhances operational efficiency. This is particularly vital in complex ERP environments, where data is often scattered across multiple applications and departments. MDM in IFS Cloud supports regulatory compliance, improves decision-making, and streamlines operations, making it a foundational element for any data-driven enterprise .

2. Understanding Data Contracts in Modern Data Governance

What Are Data Contracts?

Data contracts are formal agreements between data producers (e.g., application teams, business domains) and data consumers (e.g., analytics, reporting, or downstream systems). These contracts specify the structure, semantics, quality, and service-level expectations for data exchanged between parties. They define schemas, metadata, ownership, access rights, and quality metrics, ensuring that both producers and consumers have a shared understanding of the data .

Purpose and Benefits of Data Contracts

  • Formalization of Data Exchange: Data contracts clarify what data is provided, in what format, and under what conditions, reducing ambiguity and miscommunication .
  • Data Quality and Reliability: By specifying quality standards (e.g., accuracy, completeness, timeliness), contracts ensure that data consumers receive trustworthy data, which is critical for analytics and operational processes .
  • Accountability and Governance: Contracts assign clear ownership and stewardship, making it easier to trace issues and enforce data governance policies .
  • Compliance and Security: By defining access rights and usage policies, data contracts help organizations comply with regulatory requirements and protect sensitive information .
  • Scalability and Efficiency: Standardized contracts reduce integration costs and support the scaling of data products across distributed teams and systems .

3. Relationship Between Master Data Management and Data Contracts

MDM as the Foundation for Data Contracts

MDM provides the authoritative, standardized data that forms the basis for effective data contracts. By ensuring a single source of truth, MDM eliminates inconsistencies and enables organizations to define contracts on top of reliable, governed data assets .

Layering Data Contracts on MDM

  • Enforcing Data Quality and Security: Data contracts can be layered atop MDM to specify and enforce data quality metrics, validation rules, and security requirements for data shared between ERP modules or with external partners.
  • Interoperability: Contracts define the interfaces and data formats for exchanging master data, ensuring seamless integration across heterogeneous systems and supporting interoperability in complex ERP landscapes.
  • Governance and Compliance: The combination of MDM and data contracts strengthens data governance by providing both the data foundation and the operational agreements needed to manage data as a strategic asset .

4. Data Domains in IFS Cloud: Structure and Examples

Concept and Structure of Data Domains

In IFS Cloud, data domains are logical groupings of data assets aligned with key business functions. The platform’s architecture is organized into tiers—presentation, API, business logic, storage, and platform—each supporting the definition and management of data domains. Components within IFS Cloud group related entities, projections, and business logic into coherent capability areas (e.g., General Ledger, Accounts Payable), enabling modular deployment and management .

Table: Example Data Domains in IFS Cloud

Data Domain Business Function Example Data Assets
Customer CRM, Sales, Service Customer profiles, contacts, contracts
Supplier Procurement, Finance Supplier records, agreements, payment terms
Product Manufacturing, Inventory Product master, BOM, specifications
Asset Maintenance, Operations Asset registry, maintenance history, warranties

The IFS Data Catalog: Classification and Governance

The IFS Data Catalog is a key tool for classifying, indexing, and governing data assets within these domains. It automatically scans data sources, creates metadata catalog entries, and classifies information to support compliance and discoverability. The catalog provides a unified view of the data estate, enabling data stewards to manage data assets effectively and ensure alignment with governance policies .

5. Implementing Data Mesh in ERP Systems Using IFS Cloud Data Domains

Core Principles of Data Mesh

Data Mesh is a paradigm shift in data architecture, emphasizing:

  1. Domain-Oriented Ownership: Data is owned and managed by the business domains closest to its source and use .
  2. Data as a Product: Each data set is treated as a product, with clear interfaces, quality standards, and product owners .
  3. Self-Serve Data Infrastructure: Platform teams provide tools and infrastructure that enable domain teams to build, deploy, and operate their own data products .
  4. Federated Computational Governance: Governance is distributed but coordinated, ensuring consistency, security, and compliance across domains .

Using IFS Cloud Data Domains as the Foundation

IFS Cloud’s modular, domain-aligned architecture is ideally suited for Data Mesh:

  • Domain Teams: Assign ownership of data domains (e.g., Customer, Supplier) to business units or cross-functional teams, making them responsible for the quality, lifecycle, and delivery of their data products .
  • Data Contracts as Product Interfaces: Use data contracts to define the structure, quality, and access policies for each data product, ensuring reliable and governed data exchange within and across domains .
  • Self-Serve Infrastructure: Leverage the IFS Data Catalog and API-driven platform to enable discoverability, access, and integration of data products by other teams or external partners .
  • Federated Governance: Implement governance policies that are enforced both centrally (e.g., compliance, security) and locally (e.g., domain-specific quality metrics), using the catalog and contracts as operational tools .

Diagram: Data Mesh with IFS Cloud Data Domains

[Customer Domain]---[Data Contract]---\
[Supplier Domain]---[Data Contract]----> [Data Catalog & Self-Serve Platform] <---[Consumer: Analytics, Reporting, External APIs]
[Product Domain]----[Data Contract]---/

6. Case Studies and Practical Insights

Real-World Examples

  • Saxo Bank: Saxo Bank adopted a data mesh architecture to modernize its data infrastructure, leveraging event-driven technologies and secure data mesh solutions. This enabled decentralized data ownership, improved operational efficiency, and enhanced data security .
  • Siemens: Siemens has modernized its data infrastructure and analytics capabilities, moving towards decentralized data management and improved accessibility—key tenets of Data Mesh—by partnering with cloud and analytics providers .

Outcomes

Organizations implementing Data Mesh in ERP or similar environments report:

  • Improved Agility: Decentralized ownership allows teams to respond faster to business needs.
  • Data Democratization: Self-serve platforms and clear contracts make data more accessible and usable across the organization.
  • Enhanced Governance: Federated governance ensures compliance and quality without stifling innovation .

Challenges and Best Practices

Key Challenges

  • Data Silos and Shadow IT: Decentralization can lead to new silos if not managed with strong governance .
  • Integration Complexity: Migrating and integrating legacy data with cloud ERP systems is complex and error-prone .
  • Regulatory Compliance: Ensuring compliance in multi-tenant cloud environments requires robust controls .
  • Cultural Resistance: Shifting to domain ownership and new governance models can face organizational pushback .

Best Practices

  • Develop a Scalable Governance Plan: Establish clear policies, procedures, and tools for data quality, security, and compliance .
  • Standardize Data Language: Use metadata and data catalogs to create a common understanding of data assets .
  • Embed Governance in Daily Operations: Integrate governance into workflows, not as an afterthought .
  • Continuous Monitoring and Improvement: Use KPIs and regular reviews to ensure ongoing data quality and compliance .
  • Invest in Training and Change Management: Educate teams on new roles, responsibilities, and the value of data governance .

7. Conclusion

Implementing IFS Cloud Master Data as Data Contracts within a Data Mesh framework represents a powerful approach to modernizing data management in ERP systems. By leveraging IFS Cloud’s modular, API-driven architecture and robust MDM capabilities, organizations can establish reliable, governed data domains that serve as the foundation for domain-oriented data ownership and productization. Data contracts formalize the expectations and responsibilities around data exchange, enhancing data quality, reliability, and compliance.

When combined with Data Mesh principles—domain ownership, data as a product, self-serve infrastructure, and federated governance—this approach delivers tangible benefits: improved business agility, democratized data access, and robust governance. Real-world examples from organizations like Saxo Bank and Siemens demonstrate the transformative potential of this strategy.

As ERP environments grow in complexity and scale, adopting these modern data management practices is essential for organizations seeking to unlock the full value of their data, drive innovation, and maintain a competitive edge in the digital era.

For data architects, ERP professionals, and business leaders, the path forward is clear: embrace modular, governed, and product-oriented data management with IFS Cloud and Data Mesh to future-proof your enterprise data landscape.

From ERP Truth to Data Product Implementing IFS Cloud Master Data as Data Contracts

From ERP Truth to Data Product: Implementing IFS Cloud Master Data as Data Contracts

Executive Summary

Master data is the backbone of ERP. Parts, customers, suppliers, and the chart of accounts keep the business running. Yet these records do not always flow cleanly into analytics, AI, or partner APIs. Wrapping IFS Cloud master data in machine-readable contracts changes that. Contracts make tables into products: versioned, tested, discoverable, and safe to reuse. This article explains how to move from ERP truth to data products in ten steps. The benefits are clear. Fewer remediation tickets, faster ROI, and a governed path for digital projects.

Why start with master data

  • It is canonical and governed. ERP enforces unique values, mandatory fields, reference lists, and security.
  • It changes slowly. Schemas evolve slowly, so contracts rarely break.
  • It is authoritative. When disputes arise in finance or operations, ERP is the system of record.

A data contract is an agreement that defines schema, semantics, quality checks, and access rules. Master data is a strong first candidate. It is stable, trusted, and high-impact.

IFS building blocks

  • Schema → Aurena projections such as PartCatalog or CustomerInfo. Export OpenAPI v3 and push to Git as the contract of record.
  • Semantics and glossary → Field labels, LOVs, metadata. Enrich OpenAPI with descriptions, enums, and custom tags. Sync to the Data Catalog.
  • Delivery channels → OData APIs for CRUD, IFS Connect events for change data, Data Pump for Parquet batch loads.
  • Quality and SLOs → ERP validation plus SQL checks. Express in JSON-Schema or dbt tests. Enforce in CI/CD.
  • Security → IAM scopes and permission sets. Add to OpenAPI and auto-provision roles on deploy.

Tip: Treat OpenAPI as code. Store the contract with its pipeline. A Git merge is the approval gate.

Publishing workflow

  1. Export the OpenAPI spec from Aurena.
  2. Push it to Git and tag the version.
  3. Run CI jobs to lint, generate dbt tests, and report results.
  4. When merged, register in the IFS Data Catalog.
  5. Trigger Data Pump to land Parquet files in the lake with the contract ID.
  6. Consumers find and use the data with confidence.

Versioning policy

  • Add a non-breaking column → Minor version bump. Keep backward compatibility for six months.
  • Rename or drop a column → Major bump. Keep the old version until all consumers migrate.
  • Change enum values → Add values is minor. Removing values is major.
  • Tighten quality SLO → Patch. No breakage.

Tip: Automate the diff in CI. Fail merges if major changes lack a version bump.

Governance in a data mesh

Classic governance needed central approval for all changes. Data mesh defines a thin set of rules such as naming, SLO baselines, and PII handling. Policies are templates. Domain teams publish contracts, inherit templates, and self-certify in CI. Machines enforce rules, humans debate policy. Reviews are faster, audits are stronger.

Master Data Hub synergy

A hub reduces duplicates, errors, and compliance issues. Contracts extend that value.

  • Single source of truth → Hub data advertised to all systems.
  • Real-time sync → OData or events remove nightly reconciliations.
  • Scalable → New domains or M&A? Add a contract, no re-platform.
  • Faster insights → Analysts trust freshness and lineage.

Tip: Use contracts as stable interfaces during MDM migration.

Implementation checklist

  1. Export OpenAPI specs for master entities.
  2. Commit and tag in Git. Review required.
  3. Integrate contract linting and dbt test generation in CI.
  4. Add SLOs and quality checks in YAML.
  5. Schedule dbt jobs with Data Pump cadence.
  6. Register all merged contracts in the Data Catalog.
  7. Configure IAM roles and reference in contracts.
  8. Automate Data Pump jobs to land Parquet with contract IDs.
  9. Monitor freshness and compliance in dashboards.
  10. Train domain teams to publish contracts on their own.

Key takeaways

  • Start with master data. It is authoritative and stable.
  • Use IFS built-ins. Export APIs, use the catalog, and automate Data Pump.
  • Automate governance. CI/CD runs tests and diffs.
  • Version with intent. Semantic rules keep consumers safe.
  • Pilot quickly. Pick one entity and finish within two sprints.

Spin up your first contract now. It sets the foundation for governed, reusable data products.

Data Domain Mapping: The Silent Saboteur of Data Governance Programs

Data domain mapping is often the silent saboteur of enterprise data governance programs. At first glance, defining domains seems like child’s play – just drawing boxes around related data. Yet when domains remain undefined or poorly mapped, governance efforts stall and falter. Many organizations overlook this critical foundation, and their governance initiatives suffer as a result.

When data domains are undefined, confusion reigns: no one is sure who owns what data, and governance can grind to a halt. Teams lack clarity on scope and responsibilities, making it nearly impossible to enforce policies or improve data quality. The remedy lies in organizing data into logical domains. Establishing clear domain groupings with assigned owners jumpstarts governance by bringing structure and accountability to an otherwise chaotic data landscape.

Key Benefits of Data Domain Mapping

  1. Logical Groupings Simplify the Data Catalog: Data domains group related data logically, acting like large sections in a library for your enterprise information linkedin.com. By separating data into domains (often aligned to business functions like Finance, HR, Sales), you bring order to sprawling datasets rittmanmead.com. This logical grouping simplifies your data catalog structure, making it easier for users to find what they need rittmanmead.com. In short, domains provide a clear, high-level structure for otherwise siloed or disorganized data collections linkedin.com.

  2. Clear Ownership and Accountability: Each domain is aligned with a specific business unit or function, which means that unit takes ownership of “its” data linkedin.com. This alignment establishes clear accountability. For example, the finance team owns finance data, the sales team owns sales data, and so on getdbt.com. Assigning domains by business area ensures that subject-matter experts are responsible for data quality and definitions in their domain rittmanmead.com. With designated domain owners, there’s no ambiguity about who manages and governs a given dataset – stewardship is baked in.

  3. Beware the Hidden Complexity: Mapping data domains is not as easy as drawing boxes on an org chart. In fact, it’s one of the most underestimated challenges in data governance linkedin.com. Defining the right scope and boundaries for each domain – and getting consensus across departments – can take months of effort linkedin.com. What looks simple on paper often grows complicated in practice, as teams debate overlaps and definitions. It’s critical to recognize this hidden complexity early. Underestimating it can derail your governance program, turning a “beautiful idea on paper” into frustration linkedin.com. Patience and careful planning are essential to navigate the complex domain mapping decisions.

  4. Scoped Governance for Quick Wins: The beauty of domain-driven mapping is that it lets you tackle data governance in manageable chunks. Rather than boiling the ocean, you can prioritize one or two domains to begin governance initiatives on a smaller, controlled scope linkedin.com. Focusing on a high-value domain (say, customer or finance data) allows you to implement policies, data quality checks, and catalogs in that area first, delivering quick wins to the business. This domain-by-domain approach is “elegant [and] manageable”linkedin.com – it builds momentum. By demonstrating success in a well-chosen domain, you create a template that can be rolled out to other domains over time. This incremental strategy prevents overwhelm and proves the value of governance early on.

  5. Improved Discoverability and Team Autonomy: Organizing by data domains doesn’t just help users find data – it also empowers teams. A domain-oriented data architecture enhances discoverability by grouping data that naturally belongs together, allowing data consumers to know where to look. Moreover, because each domain team manages its own data assets, they gain greater autonomy to innovate within their realm. Modern decentralized data frameworks (like data mesh) highlight that giving domain teams ownership leads to faster, more tailored solutions – with data made “easily consumable by others” across the organization getdbt.com. Teams closest to the data have the freedom to adapt and improve it, while enterprise-wide standards provide governance guardrails. In other words, domain mapping enables a balance: local autonomy for domain teams within a framework of central oversight. Federated governance models ensure that even as teams operate independently, they adhere to common policies and compliance requirements getdbt.com. The result is a more agile data environment where information is both discoverable and well-governed.

Conclusion – Structure for Success: Logical domain structures ultimately drive trust in data. When everyone knows where data lives and who stewards it, confidence in using that data soars. Clarity in domain ownership and scope unlocks fast governance wins by allowing focused improvements. In essence, the right structure silences the “silent saboteur” that undermines so many governance efforts. By mapping your domains, you take control of your data – and set the stage to master it.

Sources:

  1. Charlotte Ledoux, “The Data Domains Map Enigma” – LinkedIn Post linkedin.com

  2. Jon Mead, “How to Get a Data Governance Programme Underway... Quickly” – RittmanMead Blog rittmanmead.com rittmanmead.com

  3. Daniel Poppy, “The 4 Principles of Data Mesh” – dbt Labs Blog getdbt.com getdbt.com

  4. Daniel Poppy, “The 4 Principles of Data Mesh” (Federated Governance) – dbt Labs Blog getdbt.com

  1. What is Data Mesh? How to Implement Data Mesh: Step-by-Step
  2. Promote Cultural Shift & Training: Building Skills and Mindsets for Data Mesh
  3. Enable Data Discoverability: Making Data Easy to Find and Trust
  4. Apply Federated Computational Governance: Balancing Autonomy and Compliance

Page 1 of 3