To manage individual client profiles within family portfolios while avoiding blending profiles, the consultant should recommend a more restrictive design approach for identity resolution. Here's why:
Understanding the Requirement
The financial services firm wants to maintain distinct profiles for individual family members despite shared contact points (e.g., address, phone number).
The goal is to avoid blending profiles to ensure personalized service and accurate financial advice.
Why a Restrictive Design Approach?
Avoiding Over-Matching :
A restrictive design approach ensures that match rules are narrowly defined to prevent over-matching (e.g., merging profiles based solely on shared addresses or phone numbers).
This preserves the uniqueness of individual profiles while still allowing for some shared attributes.
Custom Match Rules :
The consultant can configure custom match rules that prioritize unique identifiers (e.g., email, social security number) over shared contact points.
This ensures that family members with shared addresses or phone numbers remain distinct.
Other Options Are Less Suitable :
A . Configure a single match rule with a single connected contact point based on address : This would likely result in over-matching and blending profiles, which is undesirable.
B . Use multiple contact points without individual attributes in the match rules : This approach lacks the precision needed to maintain distinct profiles.
D . Configure a single match rule based on a custom identifier : While custom identifiers are useful, relying on a single rule may not account for all scenarios and could lead to over-matching.
Steps to Implement the Solution
Step 1: Analyze Shared Attributes
Identify shared attributes (e.g., address, phone number) and unique attributes (e.g., email, social security number).
Step 2: Define Restrictive Match Rules
Configure match rules that prioritize unique attributes and minimize reliance on shared contact points.
Step 3: Test Identity Resolution
Test the match rules to ensure that individual profiles are preserved while still allowing for some shared attributes.
Step 4: Monitor and Refine
Continuously monitor the results and refine the match rules as needed to achieve the desired outcome.
Conclusion
A more restrictive design approach ensures that match rules perform as desired, preserving the uniqueness of individual profiles while accommodating shared attributes within family portfolios.