arxiv: 2604.11537 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-13 · 💻 cs.SE

Recognition: unknown

Beyond the Golden Record: Toward a Design Theory for Trustworthy Master Data Management with Self-Sovereign Identity

Niklas Schulte , Isaac Henderson Johnson Jeyakumar , Michael Kubach , Christian Janiesch

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE

keywords master data managementself-sovereign identitydata sovereigntydata ecosystemsdesign theorydata spacestrustworthy data managementdata quality

0 comments

The pith

Self-sovereign identity supports a design theory for master data management that is reliable, sovereign, and accountable in data ecosystems.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper addresses persistent problems with master data timeliness and reliability by shifting away from commercial data brokers toward data ecosystems that support sovereign sharing. It derives a nascent design theory for trustworthy master data management based on self-sovereign identity, grounded in a hermeneutic literature review and industry expert interviews. The theory is then instantiated through integration into a reference architecture for data spaces and evaluated with additional expert interviews. A sympathetic reader would care because this approach could eliminate strategic dependencies on brokers while reducing risks from disclaimed liability and improving overall data control and quality.

Core claim

The authors derive a nascent design theory for trustworthy master data management based on self-sovereign identity. Grounded through a hermeneutic literature review combined with industry expert interviews and instantiated through integration into a reference architecture for data spaces, the theory is evaluated through further expert interviews. This work provides a framework for a trustworthy master data management in data ecosystems that is reliable, sovereign, and accountable.

What carries the argument

The nascent design theory for trustworthy master data management based on self-sovereign identity, which carries the argument by enabling trusted sharing with data sovereignty when integrated into data space reference architectures.

If this is right

Organizations reduce strategic dependencies on commercial data brokers that typically disclaim liability for data accuracy.
Master data quality improves through direct sovereign control in shared data ecosystems.
Data spaces gain reference architectures that embed identity mechanisms to support accountability in data handling.
Trusted data sharing becomes feasible without creating new risks from third-party data providers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The framework could extend to related areas such as personal data management or supply chain data flows where sovereignty matters.
Real adoption would likely require new technical standards for self-sovereign identity within existing data space protocols.
This points toward broader shifts in data governance from centralized broker models to decentralized ecosystem approaches.

Load-bearing premise

That a hermeneutic literature review combined with industry expert interviews sufficiently grounds a valid and generalizable design theory that can integrate self-sovereign identity into data space architectures without major technical or adoption barriers.

What would settle it

A real-world pilot that applies the design theory in an operational data space and then measures whether master data timeliness and reliability improve while sovereignty and accountability are preserved, or where follow-up expert interviews reject the framework after implementation.

read the original abstract

Ensuring the timeliness and reliability of master data remains a persistent challenge for many organizations. To mitigate these quality deficits, organizations frequently rely on commercial data brokers. However, this practice creates strategic dependencies and poses significant business risks, particularly as providers typically disclaim liability for the accuracy of the supplied data. In contrast, modern data ecosystems enable the trusted sharing of data assets with strong data sovereignty. In this paper, we address this paradigm shift by deriving a nascent design theory for trustworthy master data management based on self-sovereign identity. The theory is grounded through a hermeneutic literature review combined with industry expert interviews and instantiated through integration into a reference architecture for data spaces. Following an evaluation through additional industry expert interviews, our work provides a framework for a trustworthy master data management in data ecosystems that is reliable, sovereign, and accountable.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper sketches a qualitative design theory for MDM with SSI but provides no concrete technical mappings or evidence that the integration actually delivers reliability and accountability.

read the letter

The core takeaway is that this work combines self-sovereign identity ideas with master data management to reduce reliance on data brokers, grounded in a hermeneutic literature review plus two rounds of industry interviews. It claims the result is a framework that is reliable, sovereign, and accountable when instantiated in data-space reference architectures. That framing addresses a genuine pain point in enterprise data quality and sovereignty, and the choice to draw directly from practitioner input rather than pure theory is a reasonable move for a design-science paper in this area. The literature synthesis also looks clean on the surface and extends existing data-space work without obvious circularity. What stands out as new is the explicit positioning of SSI as a design principle set for MDM rather than just another identity layer. The paper does that part without overclaiming prior results. The soft spots are more substantial than minor. The evaluation stays at the level of additional expert interviews, so there is no quantitative test of data timeliness, accuracy, or liability reduction, and no artifact or mapping that shows how verifiable credentials, DIDs, or revocation actually plug into master-data provenance or fix broker risks. The assumption that SSI can be dropped into data-space architectures without introducing scalability, key-management, or cross-jurisdiction problems is stated but not demonstrated. That leaves the central claim resting on interpretive synthesis rather than falsifiable evidence. This paper is mainly for researchers and practitioners already working on data ecosystems, data spaces, or enterprise identity. A reader looking for a ready reference architecture or validated principles will come away wanting more detail. It is worth sending to peer review because the problem is real, the method is transparent, and the subfield can use the conversation even if the current version needs tighter technical grounding and perhaps a small case study to become more useful.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper derives a nascent design theory for trustworthy master data management (MDM) in data ecosystems using self-sovereign identity (SSI). It grounds the theory in a hermeneutic literature review plus industry expert interviews, instantiates it by integrating SSI concepts into a reference architecture for data spaces, and evaluates the result via additional expert interviews. The claimed outcome is a framework enabling reliable, sovereign, and accountable MDM that reduces reliance on commercial data brokers and their associated risks around timeliness, accuracy, and liability.

Significance. If the design theory proves robust and instantiable, the work could meaningfully advance data management practices by linking MDM with SSI and data-space architectures, offering an alternative to broker-dependent models. The combination of literature grounding, expert input, and architectural instantiation is a constructive step toward actionable principles in this area.

major comments (2)

[instantiation section] The instantiation step (reference architecture integration) supplies no concrete technical mapping of SSI primitives—such as verifiable credentials, decentralized identifiers, or revocation mechanisms—to MDM requirements like data provenance, timeliness guarantees, or accountability. Without this mapping, it remains unclear whether the framework actually mitigates broker risks or merely assumes SSI capabilities suffice.
[evaluation section] The evaluation relies exclusively on further industry expert interviews without quantitative validation, controlled case studies, or artifact-level testing of the derived design principles. This limits the ability to assess generalizability beyond the specific interview contexts and leaves open whether the principles hold under real-world scalability or cross-jurisdictional constraints.

minor comments (2)

[methodology] Clarify the exact extraction process used in the hermeneutic review to derive the design principles from the literature and interviews; a more explicit coding or synthesis table would improve traceability.
[introduction] The abstract and introduction could more precisely distinguish the novel contributions of the design theory from prior SSI and data-space work to strengthen the positioning.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and insightful comments. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will incorporate to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [instantiation section] The instantiation step (reference architecture integration) supplies no concrete technical mapping of SSI primitives—such as verifiable credentials, decentralized identifiers, or revocation mechanisms—to MDM requirements like data provenance, timeliness guarantees, or accountability. Without this mapping, it remains unclear whether the framework actually mitigates broker risks or merely assumes SSI capabilities suffice.

Authors: We acknowledge that the instantiation currently offers a conceptual integration of SSI into the data space reference architecture rather than a detailed technical mapping of primitives to specific MDM requirements. This approach reflects the paper's focus on deriving a nascent design theory at the principle level. To address the concern, we will revise the instantiation section to include an explicit mapping (e.g., a table) linking SSI elements such as decentralized identifiers to identity sovereignty, verifiable credentials to data provenance and timeliness, and revocation mechanisms to accountability. This will more clearly demonstrate how the framework can reduce broker dependencies without merely assuming SSI sufficiency. revision: partial
Referee: [evaluation section] The evaluation relies exclusively on further industry expert interviews without quantitative validation, controlled case studies, or artifact-level testing of the derived design principles. This limits the ability to assess generalizability beyond the specific interview contexts and leaves open whether the principles hold under real-world scalability or cross-jurisdictional constraints.

Authors: The evaluation via expert interviews follows established practices for developing and validating nascent design theories in information systems research. We agree that this method limits claims about quantitative performance, scalability, and cross-jurisdictional applicability, as those would require implemented artifacts and broader testing. In the revision, we will expand the evaluation and limitations sections to explicitly discuss these boundaries, reference relevant design science evaluation criteria, and outline planned future work involving prototypes and case studies for empirical validation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation grounded externally

full rationale

The paper derives its nascent design theory via a hermeneutic literature review plus industry expert interviews, instantiates the theory by integrating it into a reference architecture for data spaces, and evaluates via further interviews. This follows standard design-science methodology relying on independent external sources. No equations, fitted parameters, self-definitional constructs, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided derivation chain. The central claims do not reduce to inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the assumption that qualitative methods (hermeneutic review and interviews) can produce a grounded design theory and that SSI integration is feasible in data spaces; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Hermeneutic literature review combined with industry expert interviews provides sufficient grounding for deriving a design theory.
Invoked as the basis for theory development and evaluation in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5452 in / 1227 out tokens · 34908 ms · 2026-05-10T15:42:25.435708+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

Gaia-X European Association for Data and Cloud AISBL: Gaia-X, https://www.gaia-x.eu, last accessed 2026/01/22

2026
[2]

Catena-X Automotive Network e.V.: Catena -X: The First Open and Collaborative Data Ecosystem., https://catena-x.net/, last accessed 2026/01/22

2026
[3]

In: Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS)

Otto, B., Ofner, M.: Strategic business requirements for master data management systems. In: Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS). pp. 936–947 (2011)

2011
[5]

AMCIS 2010 Proceedings

Otto, B., Ebner, V., Hüner, K.: Measuring Master Data Quality: Findings from a Case Study. AMCIS 2010 Proceedings. (2010)

2010
[6]

UK Academy for Information Systems Conference Proceedings 2025

Keith, K., Seymour, L.: Precursors of Master Data Quality Issues across Enterprise Systems. UK Academy for Information Systems Conference Proceedings 2025. (2025)

2025
[7]

CONF-IRM 2013 Proceedings

Baghi, E., Otto, B., Oesterle, H.: Controlling Customer Master Data Quality: Findings from a Case Study. CONF-IRM 2013 Proceedings. (2013)

2013
[8]

AMCIS 2022 Proceedings

Roth, H., Mönch, S., Schäffer, T.: Towards Augmented MDM: Overview of Design and Function Areas – A Literature Review. AMCIS 2022 Proceedings. (2022)

2022
[9]

12th Scandinavian Conference on Information Systems

Laatikainen, G., Kolehmainen, T., Abrahamsson, P.: Self -Sovereign Identity Ecosystems: Benefits and Challenges. 12th Scandinavian Conference on Information Systems. (2021)

2021
[10]

Electron Markets

Babel, M., Willburger, L., Lautenschlager, J., Völter, F., Guggenberger, T., Körner, M.-F., Sedlmeir, J., Strüker, J., Urbach, N.: Self -sovereign identity and digital wallets. Electron Markets. 35, 28 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-025-00772-0

work page doi:10.1007/s12525-025-00772-0 2025
[11]

European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS)

Schäfer, F., Rosen, J., Zimmermann, C., Wortmann, F.: Unleashing The Potential of Data Ecosystems: Establishing Digital Trust through Trust -Enhancing Technologies. European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS). (2023)

2023
[12]

International Journal of Information Management

Vilminko-Heikkinen, R., Pekkola, S.: Changes in roles, responsibilities and ownership in organizing master data management. International Journal of Information Management. 47, 76–87 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.12.017

work page doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.12.017 2019
[13]

Hikmawati, S., Santosa, P.I., Hidayah, I.: Improving Data Quality and Data Governance Using Master Data Management: A Review. IJITEE. 5, 90 (2021). https://doi.org/10.22146/ijitee.66307. Toward a Design Theory for Trustworthy MDM with SSI 17

work page doi:10.22146/ijitee.66307 2021
[14]

Elsevier Inc

Loshin, D.: Master Data Management. Elsevier Inc. (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978 - 0-12-374225-4.X0001-X

work page doi:10.1016/b978 2009
[15]

Cofinity-X: Golden Record Service, https://www.cofinity -x.com/golden-record, last ac- cessed 2025/12/08

2025
[16]

Tobin, A., Reed, D., Windley, F.P.J., Foundation, S.: The Inevitable Rise of Self-Sovereign Identity. (2017)

2017
[17]

Electron Markets

Richter, D., Anke, J.: Self-sovereign identity: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Electron Markets. 36, 17 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-025-00867-8

work page doi:10.1007/s12525-025-00867-8 2026
[18]

W3C: W3C Recommendation - Verifiable Credentials Data Model, https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model-2.0/
[19]

Laatikainen, G., Mustak, M., Hickman, N.: Self -sovereign identity adoption: Antecedents and potential outcomes. Technol. Soc. 82, (2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tech- soc.2025.102859

work page doi:10.1016/j.tech- 2025
[20]

Procedia Computer Science

Jeyakumar, I.H.J., Kubach, M.: A trust implementation model for cross -domain decentral- ized identity ecosystems: architecture, use case, and implementation. Procedia Computer Science. 254, 10–19 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2025.02.059

work page doi:10.1016/j.procs.2025.02.059 2025
[21]

A design science research methodology for information systems research,

Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Sys- tems. 24, 45–77 (2007). https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302

work page doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222240302 2007
[22]

Journal of the Association for Information Systems

vom Brocke, J., Winter, R., Hevner, A., Maedche, A.: Special Issue Editorial – Accumula- tion and Evolution of Design Knowledge in Design Science Research: A Journey Through Time and Space. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 21, (2020). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00611

work page doi:10.17705/1jais.00611 2020
[23]

Design science in information systems research,

Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design Science in Information Systems Re- search1. MIS Quarterly. 28, 75–106 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625

work page doi:10.2307/25148625 2004
[24]

Boell, S.K., Cecez -Kecmanovic, D.: A Hermeneutic Approach for Conducting Literature Reviews and Literature Searches. CAIS. 34, (2014). https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03412

work page doi:10.17705/1cais.03412 2014
[25]

Electron Markets

Herm, L.-V., Steinbach, T., Wanner, J., Janiesch, C.: A nascent design theory for explaina- ble intelligent systems. Electron Markets. 32, 2185 –2205 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-022-00606-3

work page doi:10.1007/s12525-022-00606-3 2022
[26]

Journal of the Association for Information Systems

Jones, D., Gregor, S.: The Anatomy of a Design Theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 8, (2007). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00129

work page doi:10.17705/1jais.00129 2007
[27]

In: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS)

Chandra, L., Seidel, S., Gregor, S.: Prescriptive Knowledge in IS Research: Conceptualiz- ing Design Principles in Terms of Materiality, Action, and Boundary Conditions. In: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). pp. 4039 –4048. IEEE Com puter Society, USA (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2015.485

work page doi:10.1109/hicss.2015.485 2015
[28]

Journal of the Association for Information Systems

Gregor, S., Kruse, L.C., Seidel, S.: Research Perspectives: The Anatomy of a Design Prin- ciple. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 21, (2020). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00649

work page doi:10.17705/1jais.00649 2020
[29]

International Data Space Association: International Data Space Reference Architecture Model 4.0, https://internationaldataspaces.org/offers/reference -architecture/, last accessed 2026/01/26. 18 N. Schulte, I. Henderson, M. Kubach, C. Janiesch

2026
[30]

FEDS: A framework for evaluation in design science research,

Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., Baskerville, R.: FEDS: a Framework for Evaluation in Design Science Research. European Journal of Information Systems. 25, 77 –89 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.36

work page doi:10.1057/ejis.2014.36 2016
[31]

Journal of the Association for Information Systems

Janiesch, C., Rosenkranz, C., Scholten, U.: An Information Systems Design Theory for Ser- vice Network Effects. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 21, (2020). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00642

work page doi:10.17705/1jais.00642 2020
[32]

In: International Conference on Management Science and Indu strial Engineering

Raharjo, T., Abdurrahman, M.H., Yossy, E.H.: A model of critical success factors for mas- ter data management development projects using analytic hierarchy process (AHP): An in- sight from indonesia. In: International Conference on Management Science and Indu strial Engineering. pp. 17 –22. , Chiang Mai, Thailand (2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3603955.3603959

work page doi:10.1145/3603955.3603959 2023
[33]

Industrial Management & Data Systems

Silvola, R., Jaaskelainen, O., Kropsu‐Vehkapera, H., Haapasalo, H.: Managing one master data – challenges and preconditions. Industrial Management & Data Systems. 111, 146 – 162 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571111099776

work page doi:10.1108/02635571111099776 2011
[34]

Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS)

Buffenoir, E., Bourdon, I.: Reconciling Complex Organizations and Data Management: The Panopticon Paradigm. Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS). (2013)

2013
[35]

Otto, B., Hüner, K.M., Österle, H.: Toward a functional reference model for master data quality management. Inf. Syst. e -Bus. Manage. 10, 395 –425 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-011-0178-0

work page doi:10.1007/s10257-011-0178-0 2012
[36]

S. K. Datta, T. Bokan, L. Resman: A Reference Architecture for Agricultural Data Spaces: Case Study from DIVINE Project. In: 2025 International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing (IWCMC). pp. 8 –13 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1109/IWCMC65282.2025.11059474

work page doi:10.1109/iwcmc65282.2025.11059474 2025
[37]

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2024 (HICSS-57)

Altendeitering, M., Guggenberger, T.M.: Data Quality Tools: Towards a Software Refer- ence Architecture. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2024 (HICSS-57). (2024)

2024
[38]

Ser: Graduate Texts in Mathematics (GTM), vol

Bader, S., Pullmann, J., Mader, C., Tramp, S., Quix, C., Mueller, A.W., Akyürek, H., Böck- mann, M., Imbusch, B.T., Lipp, J., Geisler, S., Lange, C.: The International Data Spaces Information Model – An Ontology for Sovereign Exchange of Digital Content. Pr esented at the Lecture Notes in Computer Science (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978 -3-030- 62466-8_12

work page doi:10.1007/978 2020
[39]

International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS)

Azkan, C., Möller, F., Ebel, M., Iqbal, T., Otto, B., Poeppelbuss, J.: Hunting the Treasure: Modeling Data Ecosystem Value Co -Creation. International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS). (2022)

2022
[40]

Pacific Asia Con- ference on Information Systems (PACIS)

Gelhaar, J., Otto, B.: Challenges in the Emergence of Data Ecosystems. Pacific Asia Con- ference on Information Systems (PACIS). (2020)

2020
[41]

Barclay, I., Preece, A., Taylor, I., Radha, S.K., Nabrzyski, J.: Providing assurance and scru- tability on shared data and machine learning models with verifiable credentials. Concurr. Comput. Pract. Exper. 35, (2023). https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.6997

work page doi:10.1002/cpe.6997 2023
[42]

Business & Information Systems Engineering

Jarke, M., Otto, B., Ram, S.: Data Sovereignty and Data Space Ecosystems. Business & Information Systems Engineering. 61, 549–550 (2019)

2019
[43]

ACM Journal of Data and Information Quality

Weber, K., Otto, B., Oesterle, H.: One Size Does Not Fit All---A Contingency Approach to Data Governance. ACM Journal of Data and Information Quality. 1, Article 4 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1515693.1515696

work page doi:10.1145/1515693.1515696 2009