Dealer network data: who decides which fact is right

A network disagrees with itself by design

A manufacturer, its distributors and its dealers each maintain a version of the same facts, for good reasons. The manufacturer describes the product as engineered. The distributor describes what it stocks and at what branch. The dealer describes what it sells, to whom and from where. All three are partly right, and none of them is describing exactly the same thing.

Channel conflict is usually discussed as pricing and territory. The same conflict exists for data, and it is quieter: a product name that differs, a part number that exists in two formats, a spec that was revised upstream and never reached the catalog three tiers down.

Assign ownership by kind of fact

Ownership works when it follows who actually knows the fact and who is accountable for it, not who publishes it most visibly.

• Engineering facts (dimensions, ratings, materials, compliance, revision): the manufacturer.
• Identifiers (part numbers, model numbers, GTINs, supersessions): the manufacturer, with the distributor owning its own SKU and the cross-reference to it.
• Availability and lead time: the party that holds the stock at that moment.
• Territory, account status and pricing tier: the distributor or the manufacturer, by agreement.
• Hours, departments, staff, services offered at a location: the dealer.

Write the precedence down

A conflict is only resolvable if the order is explicit. The rule has three parts: the owner wins; where the owner has not stated a value, the next party in the chain may state it with a source; a stale value from a higher party does not override a current value from a lower one without a date to show it is newer. Most networks have all three rules in people's heads and none on paper.

Make every value carry its source

Precedence needs evidence. Each value in the shared record carries its source (a data file, a person, a system export), who confirmed it and when. A value with no source is a claim, not a fact. A value past its review date is flagged rather than silently trusted.

This is the same structure the Business Truth record uses for a single company, applied across the parties of a channel.

Publish from the record, compare against the copies

Governance fails when it lives in a document no feed reads. The record has to publish to the places buyers and machines read, and a recurring comparison has to show what each of those places currently says. The output is a short list: which copies disagree, on which fact, and which party can fix it.

The parties see their own part of the list. The manufacturer sees stale authorizations. The distributor sees territory drift. The dealer sees hours and department errors. Nobody has to audit the whole network to act on their share.

Why this is now urgent

Buyers increasingly ask an assistant to compare suppliers and prepare an order before they open any website. The assistant reads every party's copy at once. A network that has never settled which copy is authoritative will see the conflict surface as a wrong answer given to a buyer, with no party aware it happened.

Questions