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: http://ibm.biz/Data-and-AI-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: https://hybridcloudunit-internal.ideas.aha.io


Status Future consideration
Created by Guest
Created on Aug 18, 2020

Allow consent to be recorded for Organizations in MDM

Currently, attempts to record consent against an contact in MDM classified as an organization yields the following error:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<TCRMService xmlns="http://www.ibm.com/mdm/schema" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.ibm.com/mdm/schema MDMDomains.xsd">

<ResponseControl>

<ResultCode>FATAL</ResultCode>

<ServiceTime>48</ServiceTime>

<DWLControl>

<requesterName>cusadmin</requesterName>

<requesterLanguage>100</requesterLanguage>

<requesterLocale>en</requesterLocale>

<requestID>92345</requestID>

</DWLControl>

</ResponseControl>

<TxResponse>

<RequestType>addConsent</RequestType>

<TxResult>

<ResultCode>FATAL</ResultCode>

<DWLError>

<ComponentType>4472</ComponentType>

<ErrorMessage>The following is not correct: ConsentOwnerId.</ErrorMessage>

<ErrorType>DIERR</ErrorType>

<LanguageCode>100</LanguageCode>

<ReasonCode>50239</ReasonCode>

<Severity>0</Severity>

<Throwable>com.dwl.base.exception.DWLDataInvalidException: [4472 DIERR 50239 The following is not correct: ConsentOwnerId.]</Throwable>

</DWLError>

</TxResult>

</TxResponse>

</TCRMService>

Needed by Date Sep 16, 2020
  • Admin
    MAY LI
    Jun 7, 2021

    Thank you, Ron. I will add this additional requirement to the original that we are keeping track in Aha.

  • Guest
    Jun 7, 2021

    A corequisite requirement has surfaced for this work: Organizational structures like certain partnership structures may require each partner to provide consent, giving rise to a need for multiple consent givers on a single consent

  • Admin
    MAY LI
    Apr 12, 2021

    Hi Ron,

    Given our priority for IBM Match 360 on Cloud Pak for Data, we cannot guarantee that this RFE will happen in 2021.

    Thank You for your understanding

  • Admin
    MAY LI
    Sep 21, 2020

    Below are addtional comments from Ron re the RFE - so we have a complete picture of the requirements:

    In conversation with Raiko, there were a few items that suggested it may be best not to rush the fix:

    1. Your regression identified some inconsistent behavior in error reporting with the fix

    2. Idea MDMSEAE-I-126 “Allow Owner and Giver to reside in different CIFs” should properly be viewed as a co-requisite

    So we agreed to pursue the ENFORCEMENT_TYPE work-around to allow IBM time to solve appropriately. I was given to understand at the time that the fully supported fix would be available in a point release some time in ’21.

    With the work-around we know are missing a referential integrity constraint - which we believe our current code fully mitigates – but we’re concerned we may be missing some (present or future) support from MDM, for example when a party becomes inactive, or is collapsed.

  • Admin
    MAY LI
    Aug 20, 2020

    RBC has decided not to go with the iFix, but rather use our proposed workaround using Enforcement type 2 (external profiles, no id checking).