The 6th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM 2018) |1

Inna Parapat Hotel – Medan, August 7-9, 2018

Master Data Management Maturity Assessment: A

Case Study in the Supreme Court of the Republic of
Indonesia
Nanik Qodarsih1, Satrio Baskoro Yudhoatmojo2, Achmad Nizar Hidayanto3
Faculty of Computer Science
Universitas Indonesia
Kampus UI, Depok, 16411
Jawa Barat, Indonesia
nanik.qodarsih71@ui.ac.id1, satrio.baskoro@cs.ui.ac.id2, nizar@cs.ui.ac.id3

Abstract- Master data management (MDM) of employee is
used by the Information System of Personnel (SIKEP) and the
Integrated Supreme Court Information System (SIMARI) in
Supreme Court of Indonesia Republic (Supreme Court). SIKEP
not yet used by all echelon I units in the Supreme Court.
Therefore, it is necessary to identify problems where much data in
SIKEP is not yet complete and valid. It is necessary to manage the
master data of employees in the Supreme Court. The purpose of
master data management assessment is to find out the extent of
maturity of master data management (MDM) employee of
Supreme Court Indonesia Republic (Supreme Court). This
assessment is using management master data maturity model
(MD3M) base on other research. The objective of this research
paper is a practical nature. From a corporate point of view, the
objective is to give organization to assess their employee MDM
maturity. The result of assessment can identify potential
improvement areas of Employee MDM. Final result of the
maturity of the master data management of the Supreme Court is
as follows; for business function data model and data quality
maturity level is 1. The use and ownership and maturity level is 2.
Business security function even reach the level of maturity 4.
Therefore, the overall result of the maturity level of master data
management in the Supreme Court is 1. This means that the
Supreme Court already has awareness in the management of
master data.
Keywords— Eemployees master data, master data
management; MDM; master data management maturity; MD3M;
Supreme Court of RI
I. INTRODUCTION
Building organizational commitment among employees is
one of the important factors for ensuring organizational
effectiveness [1]. So employee data becomes very important for
the survival of an organization. Master Data Management
(MDM) is one of the data management functions that refers to
the management of shared master data within organization [2]
This has been used to allow an organization to associate all of
its critical data to a single reference platform. This platform
provides a standard definition center that can be utilized in
various businesses [3].
Master data are the data describing the most relevant
business entities, on which the activities of an organization are
based, e.g. counterparties, supplier, product or employees. In
contrast to transactional data (invoices, orders, etc.) and
inventory data, master data are oriented towards the attributes
[4]. Master data management (MDM) initiative can show the
business value by adapting the metrics to which business
stakeholders pay the most attention, e.g., key performance
indicators that relates to key business processes [5]. Because
master data is a shared core information asset within an
organization, master data management becomes the core of
corporate information management strategy. And any initiative
that stretches the company requires enormous amounts of
energy for coordination: identifying key stakeholders, gaining
their support, leveraging participant collaboration, gathering
requirements, and assigning the right people the roles and
responsibilities to make the project a success [6].
The purpose of master data management assessment is to
find out the extent of maturity of MDM, to know the quality of
master data management, organizations need to know the
Master Data Management maturity level. This is useful for
understanding the critical capabilities needed for successful
MDM development, by knowing the level of maturity, MDM
can be followed up for improvement. The author will review
several MD3M from several other studies.
In this research, the author using MD3M to assess employee
master data management in the Supreme Court of Republic of
Indonesia, because this method focuses on five important areas
that perfectly match the needs of the employee master data
assessment of the Supreme Court i.e. data model, data quality,
usage and ownership, data protection and maintenance. The
Supreme Court consists of four jurisdictions, namely Military
Courts, State Administrative Courts, Religious Courts and
 The 6th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM 2018)
Inna Parapat Hotel – Medan, August 7-9, 2018
General Courts, namely 6 units of echelon 1 and 825
subordinate working units comprising high courts and district
courts. Based on the Information of the Supreme Court's
Human Resources Bureau, the four court environments have
employed a master of employment data contained in the Bureau
of Personnel of the Supreme Court. To identify problems where
a lot of data in SIKEP is not complete and valid it is necessary
to do master data management staff of the Supreme Court. The
purpose of master data management assessment is to find out
the extent of maturity of MDM employee of Supreme Court
Indonesia Republic. The objective of this research paper is a
practical nature. From a corporate point of view, the objective
is to give organizations the possibility to assess their Employee
MDM maturity using MD3M. This situation leads to the
following research question: How the level of maturity level
master data management employee Supreme Court of
Indonesia Republic? The result of assessment can identify
potential improvement areas of Employee MDM.
The following chapter introduces the theoretical
background of the research. Afterward research approach that
was followed and on which the whole research is based on.
Then the maturity model is presented. Afterwards, the
validation is presented. The research is discussed and
conclusions are drawn as well as fields for further research
presented.
II. THEORITICAL BACKGROUND
A. Master Data
Master data is data about business entities that provide
context for business transactions. Unlike reference data, the
master data value is usually not limited to predefined domain
values. The common organizational master data includes party
data including individuals, organizations, and their roles, such
as employees, patients, customers and so on. Master data is the
most accurate and authoritative data available on key business
entities, which is used to define the context for transactional
data [2]. Master data are the data describing the most relevant
business entities, on which the activities of an organization are
based, e.g. counterparties, product or employees. In contrast to
transactional data and inventory data, master data are oriented
towards the attributes. They describe the main characteristics of
objects in the real world. Single master entities are rarely being
changed, for instance the properties of some kind of material.
Instances of master data classes are relatively constant,
especially if they are compared with transactional data. Master
data is the reference for transactional data. There would not be
a single order or delivery without master data [4]. Master data
represents the common business object that need to be agreed
on and shared throughout an enterprise. In previous sections,
we described the domains of master data and the methods of
use. Master data is most often managed within a specialized
MDM system [11].
|2
The following table summarizes key attributes mentioned
in different definitions.
TABLE I. COMPARISON OF MASTER DATA DEFINITIONS
Criteria DMBOK (Otto & Huner, Dreibelbis et
2009) al., 2008
Critical for   
business
Long lifetime  
Reference for  
Transactional
data
Reuse across   
different
system
Based on master data definition in table 1 can be concluded
data is defined as master data if it is business-critical, serves as
reference for transactional data, has a long lifetime and is used
across several different systems.
B. Master Data Management
MDM can improve data quality. Poor MDM can reduce
performance and hamper business goals [7]. Master data
management (MDM) initiative can show the business value by
adapting the metrics to which business stakeholders pay the
most attention, e.g., key performance indicators that relates to
key business processes. MDM is being implemented in
multiple domains like manufacturing domains, financial
services domain, healthcare domain etc. Stable, accurate,
cohesive master data can directly improve or increase the
operational effectiveness and reduce cost [12].
MDM in organizations plan to first enhance and then to
guarantee the quality, consistency and exactness of the master
data. Poor master data management result in missing business
and performance objectives, deficiently concurred data
possession, divided data management processes and absence of
consistent data quality affirmation [13].
C. MDM Maturity Model (MD3M)
According [14] on [5] Oracle present MDM maturity model.
The model is centered on five focus areas: profiling data source,
definition of a data strategy, definition of a data consolidation
plan, maintaining of data, and utilization of data. Oracle
mentions four maturity levels, the initial one is called
“marginal”, the next level is named “stable” and the third one
is a “best practice” containing process automation
improvements. The final maturity level is called
“transformational” and on this level, the MDM is managed
quantitatively. Assesing MDM can use the CIAM Suite
maturity assessment. this method uses a questionnaire to assess
the architecture and management of data master [9]. Another
way to assess the maturity of the master data management of an
organization was propose the MDM maturity model MD3M by
[15] and DataFlux by [8]. DataFlux mentions five maturity
 The 6th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM 2018)
Inna Parapat Hotel – Medan, August 7-9, 2018
levels i.e. initial, reactive, managed, proactive and strategic
performance.
III. METHODOLOGY
In assessment maturity level of employee MDM of
Supreme Court RI, the first time the author conducted
identification of the problem has been described in the
introduction.
Secondly the author conducted a study literature to know
the practical knowledge and academic as material to determine
the master data management maturity model used in this study.
Literature studies include academic research (thesis) and
international journals such as Science Direct, Springer and
IEEE. Third phase author determine MD3M that will be used
to assess maturity level of employee MDM of Supreme Court
RI. MD3M that will be used in this research will explain in
stage research approach and other stage in the next paragraph.
A. Research Approach
This research is based on the design science approach
described by [15] who published a paper on the development of
maturity models for IT management and proposed a procedure
model for the development.. According to [15] maturity models
have proved to be an important instrument because they allow
for a better positioning of the organization and help find better
solutions for change.
This research is expected to conduct maturity assessment of
Employee MDM using MD3M in the Supreme Court to help
find better solutions for data management problem in SIKEP
base on research according to [10]. The author chooses MD3M
because this method focuses on five important areas that
perfectly match the needs of the employee master data
assessment of the Supreme Court i.e. data model, data quality,
usage and ownership, data protection and maintenance.
B. Maturity Level
This research using The Maturity level is mainly based on
the COBIT model earlier described [15], expect that here the
level zero is left out as an explicit maturity level. The COBIT
framework is based on the same perspective like this research
and it provides the most widely known maturity level stages.
Furthermore, it not too detailed for this top-down view and
since this is an initial prototype, the overall view seems to be
the best approach. Achieving a maturity level means all
capabilities of the stage are fulfilled. Maturity level for the
MDM maturity model is describe in table 2.
TABLE II. DESCRIPTIONS OF MD3M LEVEL [15]
Level Description
1: Initial A first awareness for issues regarding the
topic MDM has been raised on operational
level,
2: Repeatable Measures from individuals are conducted to
solve individual problems. No connection to
other units or projects. Still operational
|3
First
3: Defined process First collaborations take place on a tactical
level. Awareness was created for the existence
of other initiatives.
Best
4: Managed and Best practices are in place for handling of
measurable MDM. There are defined processes on a
tactical level.
Optimized
5 : Optimized Optimized handling of MDM. The
organization’s efficiency has been improved.
Tactical approach on the topic.
C. Key topics and focus Area
Based on master data definition in table 1 can be concluded
employee data is a master data because it is business-critical,
serves as reference for transactional data, has a long lifetime
and is used across several different systems. SIKEP and
SIMARI use employee master data.
Employee master data the Supreme Court RI is used by the
entire Supreme Court environment of six units of echelon 1 and
825 subordinate work units comprising high courts and district
courts. To assess the MDM maturity model data employee of
the Supreme Court can be done with bottom up approach.
Based on these data the Supreme Court is a very large
organization. So can use MDM maturity model. Therefore, the
model is organized around topics that can be included in any
process depending on the organizational setup. There are five
key topics identified, with thirteen focus areas [10].
The key topics is consisting of Data Model, Data Quality,
Usage and Ownership, Data Protection Maintenance.
Iteratively, the final matrix was developed, ensuring that it
covers all important aspects of the topic. There are five key
topics identified, with 13 capabilities focus area.
1) Data model. This main topic relates to the display of
data, infrastructure and organizations in it. the data model
knows why data is said to be a master data, how its data
structure, what system uses the data, then where the data was
stored. According to [12], to accommodate any conceptual
master data asset, all of the data ele- ments in the various
different formats and structures that exist across the enterprise
need to be presented as a centralized resource that can both
accommodate the differences from the existing data sources
and feed the master representations back into those different
representa- tions. The focus area are the following :
a) Definition of Master data
b) Master data model
c) Data landscape
2) Data quality. the main topics of data quality is related
with the quality of data in everything, including finding out how
to assess the quality of data and the result of asessment of
quality data. Quality data is very important for the organization
in supporting the success of the vision and mission of the
organization. According to [12] Master data management
 The 6th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM 2018)
Inna Parapat Hotel – Medan, August 7-9, 2018
success depends on high-quality data. Data quality can be
improved through a master data management program. This
codependence drives a large part of the activities that under- lie
the ability for the business to make use of a master data object
framework. The focus area are the following :
a) Asessement of Data Quality
b) Impact on Business
c) Awareness of Quality Gaps
3) Usage and Ownership. This key topic is dedicated at
defining who uses the data in which system. Which employee
has read or write access and is it clear why people are granted
or denied access to certain data?. Furthermore, due to data
privacy and data protection reasons, data has to be distributed
to appropriate users and not be made available for users without
access rights [12]. Of course, data availability must be ensured
at all times. The focus area are the following :
a) Data usage
b) Data ownership
c) Data access
4) Data Protection. This main topic deals with data
security. whether the master data is guaranteed the security of
data from possible incidents, and how to ensure data security
due to the incident. According to [16] Incident can be of
different kinds; brings huge losses and hassles. Viruses,
rampant hackers, secret leaks, system failures, service
disruptions. The key Topic contains one focus area:
a) Data Protection
5) Maintanance. The focus is on physical storage and the
data lifecycle. The main points to investigate are how the data
is stored and how is the data treated during the lifecyle [10].
This area contains the following sub-topics :
a) Storage
b) Data lifecycle
D. Maturity Model
According to [10], the above topics and focuses on MDM
lead to the following Management Master Data Maturity Model
(MD3M). This research using MD3M to assessment on case
study data of employees in the Supreme Court of the Republic
of Indonesia. The summary of MD3M is shown in Table 3. The
accompanying MD3M questionnaire is also freely available
online [17].
|4
E. Data Collection
The next step in the assessment of MD3M is data
collections. Data collections consists of two stages of interview
and document observation. At the interview stage was
conducted based on the MD3M questionnaire, the Interview
was conducted with some personnel, subject matter expert in
the Personnel Staffing Bureau of the Supreme Court and IT
staff in the Supreme Court Information System Development
section. Any question on the questioner will be proved by
document observation, whether the document is present or not
and complete or not. Results analysis of the interview and
document observation will be discussed in the results in this
research.
F. Validation
MD3M in this study has been validated by [10]. To
validate the result of assessment of employee maturity master
data management of Supreme Court data is done by looking at
the evidence from the answer of questionnaire from resource
person. The Author looks directly at the field to find out directly
the master data of the employee's data, the interface used, the
information system that accesses the master data, and other
documentation as the basis for the master data maturity
assessment. The results of the assessment then created a draft
that the draft was read back by the team of data developers of
the Supreme Court.
IV. RESULT
Based on the results of interviews using the MD3M
questionnaire, the first time the author interviews to determine
the factors that affect the assessment of maturity MDM. The
resource person in this interview consists of subject matter
expert who uses the data, the boss of the employee, as well as
the development and information section related to the master
data management of the Supreme Court. Based on the
interview, it is known that in the Supreme Court is a
Governmental organization, a high State Institution whose total
employee is about 30,420 Civil Servants, needs to interact
regularly with other internal members of the group and
exchange data. Employees at the Supreme Court need to work
with many different systems for executing their daily work and
have to follow different processes when they do this.
 The 6th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM 2018)
|5
Inna Parapat Hotel – Medan, August 7-9, 2018

TABLE III. OVERVIEW OF MASTER DATA MANAGEMENT MATURITY MODEL (MD3M) WITH THE RESULT OF EMPLOYEE MDM OF SUPREME COURT
Key Topics and Focus Area Initial Repeatable Define process Managed & measurable Optimized
Data model
Definition of master data Implemented Implemented Implemented Missing Missing
Master data model Implemented Implemented Missing Implemented Implemented
Data Landscape Implemented Missing Implemented Missing Missing
Data Quality

Assessment of data quality Implemented Missing Missing Implemented Missing

Impact on business Implemented Implemented Implemented Implemented Implemented

Reasons/sources for poor quality Implemented Implemented Missing Implemented Missing

Improvement Implemented Implemented Missing Missing Implemented

Usage & ownership
Data Usage Implemented Implemented Implemented Implemented Missing
Data Ownership Implemented Implemented Implemented Missing Missing
Data access Implemented Implemented Missing Implemented Missing
Data protection
Data Protection Implemented Implemented Implemented Implemented Missing
Maintenance
Storage Implemented Implemented Missing Missing Missing
Data lifecycle Implemented Implemented Missing Implemented Implemented

The next interview was conducted by completing the TABLE IV. IMPLEMENTED VERSUS MISSING MD3M CAPABILITIES PER
MD3M questionnaire by the resource person. At the MATURITY LEVEL AT SUPREME COURT
Supreme Court we met some experts who used this data Maturity Total Implemented Missing
master in their daily work. Level
The final result of the maturity level of the master data 1 13 (100%) 100% 0%
management of the Supreme Court is as follows. For 2 13 (100%) 84.6% 15.4%
business function ‘data model’ and ‘data quality’ level of 3 13 (100%) 53.8% 46.2%
4 13 (100%) 46.1% 53.9%
maturity is 1. ‘Usage and ownership’ and ‘maintenance’ 5 13 (100%) 30.8% 69.2%
level maturity is 2. Business function ‘security’ even reach
level maturity 4. Therefore, result of overall level of V. DISCUSSION
maturity of master data management in Supreme Court is The overall assessment of the master data management
1. Due to it has not been able to reach the level of 2. The
maturity level of the Supreme Court is 1 this means that the
organization is aware of the quality of data, with technical
Supreme Court already has awareness in the management
guidance to every Supreme Court work unit across the
of the master data. For each focus area it is known that
country to review the validity and quality of data. However,
business data model and data quality level maturity is 1.
employee master data do not yet have a well-documented
For usage and ownership and maintenance level maturity is
standardized data quality for departments that use them.
2. Level 2 equals 'repeatable' state, which means that
Verification and validation of data quality is done directly insular actions have been initialized in various
to the field by the central institution of the Supreme Court.
departments. Master employee data on business security
Although the overall maturity level of the master data
functions even reach the level of maturity 4. The fourth
management of the Supreme Court is 1. However, the total
level means that business security functions are 'managed
capability has reached 63.1% of the 65 capabilities set and measurable' well on the master data of Supreme Court
while the remaining 36.9% has not been applied. employees. On key topic 'data model' the Supreme Court
Implemented Versus Missing MD3M Capabilities Per
has defined the master data model to some echelon unit 1.
Maturity Level at Supreme Court in Table IV.
The definition of inter-table on the master data has been
discussed from the information system development
section to the personnel department and several other
echelon units. The interface system as an employee data
exchange already exists.
 The 6th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM 2018)
Inna Parapat Hotel – Medan, August 7-9, 2018
However, it has not been standardized and can be applied
by all echelon 1 in the Supreme Court. The echelon 1
units, Religious judicial bodies (Badilag) and General
judicial bodies (Badilum) have not fully utilized this
interface system in exchange for employee master data.
This is because the master data on the interface has not
been able to meet the needs of the one echelon unit.
Incomplete data on data about promotion and employee
mutations on master data of Supreme Court employees.
This resulted in Badilag and Badilum still using other
databases in the management of such promotions and
mutations.
On the key topic 'Data Quality' the employee data
master does not yet have a well-documented standardized
data quality for the departments that use it. Verification
and validation of data quality is done manually directly to
the underlying work unit (high court and district court) by
the central institution of the Supreme Court. However, the
personnel bureau is aware with the quality of this data,
with the holding of technical guidance.
On the key topic 'usage and ownership', Supreme
Court knows who is using i.e. has access to what is master
data in the organization. Employees already know where
they get the data they need, for each source of the master
data it is communicated to the relevant users that they
have access and that the data contains relevant
information. The ownership of the Supreme Court
employee data is already defined. But not well
documented. On the key topic 'data protection' the
Supreme Court has implemented data protection
functions well. Master Data access is only activated on
request which is granted by the responsible authority.
There are clear rules communicated for granting access
for certain rules.
In the key topic 'maintenance' master data of
Supreme Court employees has been stored and
maintained well, the data is stored in an efficient way.
Loading does not take too long. Within a maximum of 3
seconds of data loading can already be done. But not yet
done automated tools regularly check for redundancies
and duplicates. The change of master data employee is
very significant. Changes in the amount of data
approximately every 3 seconds. Every day there is always
data changes. And for every data item, a single source of
truth is established.
The absence of standardized data quality documents
so that errors when input data is verified and validated
directly by the data and personnel information of the
Supreme Court. So this will increase the effort of central
personnel employee who takes care of all master data of
Supreme Court employees because they have to check
825 work units below it. The cost of the country to be
issued also becomes very large, if it must verify and
validate all data of the Supreme Court to every region.
With SOP every person who input or update master data
|6
employee have responsibility to maintain the quality of
data.
Recommendations based on the results of the master
data maturity assessment of employee data that the Supreme
Court needs to make a documentation about the master data.
The documentation is a landscape master data to know the
general description of all data sources and systems and the
interaction between the two. So that data redundancy can be
mapped to systems and data sources.
VI. CONCLUSION ANS FUTURE WORK
The final result of the maturity level of master data
management of the Supreme Court is as follows. For business
function 'data model' and 'data quality' maturity level is 1.
'Usage and ownership' and 'maintenance' maturity level is 2.
Business security function even reach the level of maturity 4.
Therefore, the overall result of master data management
maturity level in the Supreme Court is 1, this means the
Supreme Court already has awareness in the management of
data master. Because the organization has not formalized
quality criteria that are important and need to be measured so
that the quality of data in the Supreme Court cannot reach
level 2. Actually the organization has been aware of the
quality of data, with technical guidance to every Supreme
Court work unit throughout Indonesia to reviews validity and
the quality of the data. The overall level of maturity level of
master management data of the Supreme Court of Indonesia
is 1. However, the total capability has reached 63.1% of the
65 capabilities and 36.9% is not applied yet.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We gratefully thank the Universitas Indonesia for the
International Publication Grants for Student Thesis for
financial support with grant number
1891/UN2.R3.1/HKP.05.00/2018.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Hanaysha, “Examining the Effects of Employee Empowerment,
Teamwork, and Employee Training on Organizational
Commitment,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 229, pp. 298–306,
2016.
[2] M. Mosley et al., The DAMA Guide to The Data Management Body
of Knowledge ( DAMA-DMBOK Guide ) First Edition. 2009.
[3] F. Haneem, R. Ali, N. Kama, and S. Basri, “Resolving data
duplication, inaccuracy and inconsistency issues using Master Data
Management,” Int. Conf. Res. Innov. Inf. Syst. ICRIIS, 2017.
[4] B. Otto, “How to design the master data architecture: Findings from
a case study at Bosch,” Int. J. Inf. Manage., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 337–
346, 2012.
[5] K. Pietzka, “MD3M Master Data Management Maturity Model -
Developing an Assessment to Evaluate an Organization’s MDM
Maturity,” Univ. Utr., vol. `KOIJLUUUU, no. 3571572, p. 201,
2012.
[6] D. Loshin, “WP042 Coordinating MDM Stakeholders,” vol. 44, no.
0, pp. 0–10.
[7] D. Butler, “Oracle MDM Maturity Model [online]
 The 6th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM 2018)
|7
Inna Parapat Hotel – Medan, August 7-9, 2018

blogs.oracle.com. Available at: [13] M. F. I. Siddiqui, “Master Data Management Literature Review
http://blogs.oracle.com/mdm/entry/oracle_mdm_maturity_model, MASTER DATA MANAGEMENT :,” no. June, 2016.
[Accessed 12 Dec. 2011].
[14] R. Winter, M. Schmaltz, B. Dinter and T. Bucher, “Das St. Galler
[8] D. Loshin, “Chapter 3 - MDM Components and the Maturity Konzept der Informationslogistik. In B. Dinter & R. Winter (Eds.),
Model,” MK/OMG Press, vol. 44, no. 0, pp. 43–65, 2009. Integrierte Informationslogistik (pp. 1-16). Berlin: Springer, 2008
[9] B. Otto and K. M. Hüner, “Functional reference architecture for [15] J. Becker, R. Knackstedt, and J. Pöppelbuß, “Developing Maturity
corporate master data management,” Univ. St. Gall., p. 64, 2009. Models for IT Management,” Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng., vol. 1, no. 3, pp.
213–222, 2009.
[10] M. Spruit and K. Pietzka, “MD3M: The master data management
maturity model,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 51, pp. 1068–1076, [16] J. J. Zhao, S. Y. Zhao, and S. Y. Zhao, “Opportunities and threats:
2014. A security assessment of state e-government websites,” Gov. Inf.
Q., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 49–56, 2010.
[11] A. Dreibelbis, E. Hechler, I. Milman, M. Oberhofer, P. van Run,
and D. Wolfson, Enterprise Master Data Management, no. March. [17] K. Pietzka, “The MD3M Questionnaire : Assessing Master Data
2008. Management Maturity Marco Spruit,” no. September, 2014.
[12] D. Loshin, Chapter 5 - Data Quality and MDM BT - Master Data
Management. 2009.