DruidSmith
commented
9 years ago I would second the suggestion of using LEI. My reasoning for this is that DUNS numbers are proprietary, and can not be republished without appropriate licensing, limiting the openness of the data. One could redact the DUNS numbers when publishing the data, but then, not having a unique ID limits the potential of the data for analytical use. As such, an open, non-proprietary ID for identifying organizations is crucial.
It is understood that OMB/Treasury plan to continue use of DUNS as the unique identifier. DUNS Numbers are currently used so this makes sense from an ease of implementation viewpoint. The DUNS number has a few drawbacks related to use as an identifier for enabling non-government consumption and use. One is poor data quality, especially when it comes to understanding relationships. I know this first hand in managing a small business trying to interact with D&B (and the very unfortunately named Dun and Bradstreet Credibility Corp which targets these new companies with hard-sell $1500 "credit builder" services to build a profile to sell to the same government that required them to get a DUNS Number; it is a for-profit business and number). Another drawback is the fact that DUNS is proprietary; it's use is governed by hefty licenses with Dun and Bradstreet. This seems contrary to enabling transparency since the government is essentially enabling a private business to benefit from it's selection of DUNS as the unique identifier. Will I have to pay D&B every time I download and use a DUNS number to produce and report analysis of government spending? The drawbacks of DUNS have been mentioned many times in different forums hosted by OMB/Treasury and from my own personal experience. Finally, speaking from personal international data experience, DUNS doesn't work on a global level. So many entities today are global in nature. We want to see these global relationships.
The Global LEI is being adopted around the world in many industries and as the standard by many governments. Adoption in the US is of course slow; change takes time. We lead in so many ways, but in so many ways we are behind the global pack in this arena. However, it is coming. It's use is spreading across industries around the world. It makes sense to plan for this now.
Ideally, the government can use it's data quality plans and data integration sources as well as it's relationship with D&B to enable the population of the Global LEI for companies that have one. Make room for this in your data model. Plan for it's eventual use.
I am not proposing exclusive use of Global LEI over DUNS; I'm proposing mutual use. DUNS does more than provide a unique identifier. It is my expectation that the Global LEI will naturally take over if D&B doesn't address the deficiencies in DUNS as stakeholders find Global LEI a superior solution to enable analysis. Perhaps having both with enable greater data quality as D&B can use the royalty-free Global LEI to improve the quality of DUNS data. Having an extensible model means we have to plan for the future.
[All comments are my personal opinion unless otherwise noted.]