After following this discussion and reflecting on implementations I’ve architected across multiple industries, here’s my synthesis of what actually works:
The Centralized vs Distributed debate is a false dichotomy. Modern master data architecture demands a layered approach that addresses each concern independently:
Layer 1 - Global Identity Registry:
This is your single source of truth for customer identity, but it’s minimal by design. Contains only:
- Global Customer ID (GCID)
- Cross-reference to regional customer IDs
- Aggregated credit exposure (calculated, not stored PII)
- Entity relationship mappings
- Duplicate detection fingerprints (hashed, not actual data)
This registry can sit anywhere because it holds zero PII. It’s purely metadata for identity resolution and credit aggregation.
Layer 2 - Regional Operational Masters:
Each region owns their complete customer master with full compliance controls:
- EMEA master lives in EU data centers (GDPR compliant)
- APAC regional masters respect data localization (China, India, Australia)
- Americas master handles US/Canada/LATAM requirements
These masters contain all operational data, addresses, contacts, payment terms, tax IDs - everything needed for daily AR operations.
Layer 3 - Credit Risk Aggregation:
This is where Patricia’s concern gets addressed. Real-time credit exposure calculation happens through event-driven updates:
- Regional systems publish credit events (new orders, payments, adjustments) to ION
- Credit aggregation service updates global exposure in the registry
- Credit decisions query both local master (full customer context) and registry (global exposure)
- No PII crosses borders, only financial metrics
Regional Compliance Requirements:
Hans is absolutely right about GDPR constraints. The federated model respects this:
- Data residency is maintained at regional level
- Cross-border transfers are limited to non-PII financial aggregates
- Each region implements local validation rules (tax IDs, address formats)
- Consent management is regional, not global
Duplicate Detection and Matching:
This is the hardest part. You need:
- Probabilistic matching algorithms that work on hashed data
- Regional stewards who review and confirm matches
- Clear data governance rules for merge decisions
- Audit trail of all identity resolutions
Infor’s MDM capabilities can support this, but you’ll likely need custom matching rules tuned to your data quality realities.
Reporting and Analytics:
Consolidated reporting works through the registry’s entity relationships. Finance gets their global customer view without violating regional compliance because you’re aggregating financial results, not customer PII.
Bottom Line:
For ICS 2022 multi-regional deployments, implement federated architecture with clear separation of identity (global) and attributes (regional). It’s more complex than pure centralized, but it’s the only model that scales legally and operationally across diverse regulatory environments. The upfront investment in proper architecture prevents the nightmare scenarios of either approach taken to extremes - compliance violations with centralized or credit risk blindness with fully distributed.
Your specific implementation should prioritize getting Layer 1 (identity registry) and Layer 3 (credit aggregation) right. Those are your enterprise integration points. Regional masters can evolve independently as long as they publish to the registry correctly.