Master Data Management Issues and Opportunities
Cross-Company Perspectives on Organization, Governance, and AI from Two Global Manufacturers
Peeriosity Master Data User Group Peercast | September 2026
| Host / Format | Peeriosity Master Data User Group Peercast (audio conference + shared slides) |
|---|---|
| Presenters | Senior Manager, Global Continuous Improvement Finance and Master Data, Company A (global automotive supplier); Senior Manager and Assistant Manager, Master Data, Company B (diversified global manufacturer) |
| Facilitator | Michael Hostetler (Peeriosity) |
| Format | Moderated panel discussion with slide presentations from each panelist and open audience Q&A |
| Audience | Peeriosity member companies with representatives holding master data responsibilities; roughly a dozen attendees on the call |
Overview
Peeriosity hosted a Master Data User Group Peercast titled “Master Data Management Issues and Opportunities,” facilitated by Michael Hostetler. Two panelists presented their companies’ master data operations: a master data leader from Company A (a global automotive supplier) and a master data leader from Company B (a diversified global manufacturer), joined by a Company B colleague. The session covered organizational structure, data quality and duplicate-record management, ownership and governance, workflow tooling, vendor fraud controls, and early AI adoption in master data management, with open Q&A from attendees throughout.
Note that this document is a summary. Peeriosity-100 members have full visibility to company names, presenters, Peercast attendees, and a recording of the Peercast discussion.
Key Themes
- Master data as an AI enabler: both panelists framed clean, accurate master data as a prerequisite for intelligent automation — flawed inputs produce flawed AI recommendations.
- Fragmentation and duplicate records: historical system migrations (legacy ERPs into SAP) left duplicate and orphaned records at both companies; cleanup is constrained less by technology than by the business cost of touching open purchase orders, EDI setups, and other downstream dependencies.
- Ownership and governance friction: both companies described tension over whether the business function or the master data team owns data decisions. Company B formalized this with a “Joint Accountability Matrix” and Global Process Managers; Company A resolved most friction through 15 years of established process and stakeholder consultation.
- Centralized intake, decentralized creation: both firms route change requests through structured workflows (Company A: enterprise workflow forms; Company B: ServiceNow and, regionally, Salesforce) rather than accepting ad hoc email requests, with 3–4 day turnaround SLAs for standard changes.
- Vendor bank-detail fraud controls: both panelists described tightening verification of vendor bank account changes through document-based validation, though neither currently uses a third-party verification service such as Trustpair.
- AI adoption is early-stage: both companies use AI to support, not replace, master data processes. Company A uses AI agents for process documentation lookup and email/fraud anomaly detection; Company B is earlier in exploring AI, tied to a broader ERP modernization effort.
Panelist Company Snapshots
Company A and Company B run master data differently in scope and tooling, but converge on the same operating pressures — legacy duplicates, governance ownership, and early AI use:
| Company A | Company B | |
|---|---|---|
| Master data location | GBS center in Europe (primary), plus small teams in China | Global Shared Services (GSS); formalized as its own MDM service line in 2023 |
| Scope | Customers, vendors, GL accounts, cost centers, limited internal orders, material and sales pricing exceptions | Customer and vendor master only, across geographies |
| Team size | 5 in the European/GBS team (team leader + 4 accountants); 1 accountant in Asia Pacific | Not specified on the call |
| Systems | Single SAP HANA instance company-wide (achieved within the past year); enterprise workflow tools for intake | Single SAP ERP instance; ServiceNow for customer master intake; Salesforce for vendor onboarding in India only; exploring a new ERP platform |
| Vendor onboarding SLA | 3–4 days for change requests | ~3 days for change requests; ~14 days for new vendor onboarding (11-step governance process) |
| Bank-detail verification | Bank-provided portals, government bank-account registries (EU), and supplier due diligence; no third-party tool | Document-based validation (voided checks, bank letterhead); no callback process, no third-party tool |
| Duplicate records | Ongoing legacy issue from pre-master-data-team system migrations; actively reduced but no regular cleanup cadence | Long-standing legacy duplicates (decades of history); periodic inactivation of unused vendor records; customer-side dedup effort just started |
| Governance model | Mature — ~15 years in place; stakeholder consultation rather than unilateral process design | “Joint Accountability Matrix” splitting ownership steps between business and master data team; Global Process Managers bridge gaps |
| AI use today | Supports processes: documentation lookup agents, email/fraud anomaly detection | Minimal so far; being considered alongside a broader ERP modernization effort |
Notable Takeaways
- Team evolution beyond data entry: the Company A panelist described a deliberate shift from a “data entry team” to one that advises business users on system setup, calling this especially important as AI and automation take over routine tasks.
- Migrations without cleanup create lasting debt: both panelists cited system migrations (SAP consolidation, GSS lift-and-shift) where master data records moved without validation, leaving duplicate and orphaned records still being resolved years later.
- Duplication is sometimes intentional: both companies noted legitimate business reasons for duplicate vendor records (e.g., differing EDI setups or shipping locations), managed through documented exception processes rather than blanket prohibition.
- New employees are the main friction point: both panelists said most pushback on process comes from employees new to the company who are unfamiliar with established workflows, not from entrenched resistance.
- Company B’s next step: exploring a unified workflow/intake platform to replace its currently fragmented tools (Jaggaer for vendor onboarding, Salesforce for India-only customer intake, ServiceNow elsewhere), potentially paired with a new ERP implementation.
Audience Q&A Highlights
- Supplier update turnaround / process communication: Company A cited a 3–4 day SLA and described training new requesters via recorded walkthroughs and mandatory use of the formal Vendor Master Request workflow. Company B confirmed the same ~3-day SLA for change requests, with a longer 14-day, 11-step process for new vendor onboarding.
- SAP MDG adoption and third-party bank verification tools: Neither company currently uses SAP MDG or a third-party verification service such as Trustpair. Company B is exploring broader ERP alternatives; Company A uses bank portals and, in some EU countries, government bank-account registries.
- Duplicate vendor record monitoring: Company A has no regular ongoing cleanup process but checks for duplicates at time of creation, reducing duplicates over 10+ years of process discipline. Company B performs periodic inactivation of unused vendor records but has not undertaken active clean-up efforts given the scale of legacy data; customer-side clean-up work has only recently begun.
The moderator noted that Peeriosity’s Accounts Payable research area has an existing poll on third-party bank-verification software usage, which attendees were encouraged to review.
Source: Peeriosity Peercast recording and transcript, “Master Data Management Issues and Opportunities,” September 2026.