IBM Data and AI Ideas Portal for Customers

Shape the future of IBM!

We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:

Post your ideas

Post ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted and upvote them if they matter to you,

  1. Post an idea

  2. Upvote ideas that matter most to you

  3. Get feedback from the IBM team to refine your idea

Help IBM prioritize your ideas and requests

The IBM team may need your help to refine the ideas so they may ask for more information or feedback. The product management team will then decide if they can begin working on your idea. If they can start during the next development cycle, they will put the idea on the priority list. Each team at IBM works on a different schedule, where some ideas can be implemented right away, others may be placed on a different schedule.

Receive notification on the decision

Some ideas can be implemented at IBM, while others may not fit within the development plans for the product. In either case, the team will let you know as soon as possible. In some cases, we may be able to find alternatives for ideas which cannot be implemented in a reasonable time.

Additional Information

To view our roadmaps:

Reminder: This is not the place to submit defects or support needs, please use normal support channel for these cases

IBM Employees:

The correct URL for entering your ideas is:

Status Not under consideration
Created by Guest
Created on Mar 31, 2020

MDM AE : Performance overhead due to timestamp field format

As per the Bank's service contract, timestamp must have 'T' in the data to comply the contract validation. (Ex: 2012-03-25T00:00:00.002).

But on IBM MDM service response, this T is not available on timestamp which leads to contract validation failure.

Currently this issue is handled in middleware by overlaying ‘T' on timestamp field which is incurring an overhead. (Ex: 2012-03-25 00:00:00.002).

Needed by Date Apr 1, 2020
  • Guest
    Aug 20, 2020

    RBC has, I think, a similar requirement - compliance with date-time format per RFC 3339

  • Admin
    Marcus Boone
    Mar 31, 2020

    Eric - thank you for the sumission. We are reviewing the information you have provided and will post an update here or to you directly. Was the workaround you have in place something provided by IBM Support or something you/your solution provider implemented? Perhaps you could send me details on the workaround to Thanks again.