By Scott Moore, Director of Presales, Semarchy
Not long ago, Gartner analysts coined a new term within the data and analytics industry — the Enterprise Data Hub (EDH) — to reflect a streamlined, purposeful, and governed data activity that supported agility.
Shortly after the introduction of this concept, various data technology vendors began incorporating the phrase “Data Hub” into their naming, leading to confusion around exactly how to define and architect these hubs.
To clarify these rising questions, Gartner’s EDH concept was later refined into the Intelligent Data Hub (IDH): a software platform featuring robust capabilities for data discovery, integration, management, governance, measurement, and monitoring.
The data hub traverses multiple applications, providing governance and quality insights to effectively manage an organization’s core data assets, including customers, products, accounts, locations, employees, suppliers, and more.
The Origin and Evolution of Master Data Hub
At its core, the IDH deals with Master Data Management (MDM), a discipline that traditionally had a clear definition and purpose — focusing principally on mastering business data with pre-defined, hard-coded governance rules. Despite its clear objectives, many companies historically struggled to successfully implement MDM projects due to complexity, cost, and risks associated with achieving a single, enterprise-wide agreement on data semantics.
Recognizing the challenges, analytics-driven organizations gradually shifted from broad, enterprise-level integrations toward smaller, localized data hubs serving specific analytics and operational needs. This movement didn’t signify abandoning MDM altogether, but rather adopting more enabled and agile approaches.
Master Data Hub Patterns – Getting Back to Basics
These localized hubs rely on centralized MDM “Hubs” — databases for storing and managing Master Data, Reference Data, and Golden Data. To effectively understand these hubs, we need to revisit some of the fundamental architectural patterns of MDM hubs, each serving specific business needs and use-cases:
1. Registry Hub Style
In this pattern, master data remains in the source systems. The MDM hub stores only cross-references and indexes to source data and performs federation downstream. While this model is entirely non-intrusive, it faces potential performance challenges when assembling and transforming large-scale data dynamically.
2. Consolidation Hub Style
Master data is copied from source systems, matched and consolidated in the hub, then made available to downstream systems. This pattern alleviates performance challenges of the registry model, with stewardship processes orchestrated directly within the hub.
3. Co-Existence Hub Style
This approach builds upon the consolidation style but includes an integration loop that pushes Golden Data back into source applications. Although non-intrusive from an end-user perspective, it introduces notable organizational and technical challenges—for example, by embedding golden data views directly in user interfaces (“portlets”).
4. Centralized/Transactional Hub Style
The most intrusive — but often highest quality — approach involves fully migrating data authoring away from original systems to the MDM hub. Here, the hub becomes the single source of truth, authoring and governing data through data entry workflows. Enterprises most often use this style when operational processes lack established formal MDM, such as replacing Excel spreadsheets or informal data repositories.
Is there a single “best” pattern for all master data? Probably not. Depending on domains, source applications, and the maturity of enterprise processes, organizations might select one or even combine several of these patterns over time.
Introducing the Convergence Hub
This realization—that no hub pattern alone was ideal—led to hybrid or “Convergence” approaches. In a practical multi-domain deployment:
- Customer data might be managed in a co-existence pattern.
- Product data could rely on consolidation style, complemented by transactional data validation scenarios.
- Critical or regulatory data might work best with a registry approach.
- Financial data could demand transactional patterns to replace manual spreadsheet methods for workflow support.
The choice of pattern is not merely technical, but intimately tied to evolving business requirements. Indeed, a flexible platform like Semarchy was consciously designed to embrace all these patterns out-of-the-box and in parallel, facilitating Evolutionary MDM implementations that adapt agilely to changing business needs.
An Agile Future with the Data Hub
Today, agility, speed, and business enablement have emerged as paramount factors influencing data management and analytics. The value of the data hub rests not solely in its technical capabilities, but also in its ability to support these three critical business imperatives alongside the empowerment of data literacy, data governance, and a business-driven data development model.
Intelligent data hubs reflect a shift from rigid, enterprise-wide hard-coded rules to flexible, distributed architectures benefiting from greater business involvement. Data management professionals can quickly develop localized semantics, deploy efficient conceptual models, and provide immediate business value. Moreover, migration to an IDH doesn’t have to be daunting if planned as an incremental, evolutionary step.
Conclusion
The future of data management will increasingly gravitate toward scalable, agile, and distributed architectures supported by business users. The data hub, with principles grounded in MDM’s foundational hub patterns, has proven its value by enabling strategic agility and delivering high-quality, governed outcomes quickly.
Whether selecting registry, consolidation, coexistence, or transactional styles — or a carefully orchestrated combination — the goal remains unchanged and clear: enabling businesses to proactively create value with their data.
Need a Master Data Management solution?
Share this post
Featured Post
No featured post selected.
