The Pecking Order - Rules Sets for Mapping

Continuing from the last post, let us look at how mapping from one taxonomy to another can be used. I had used the analogy of mapping rules sets as a camera where the rules sets will collapse the multi-dimension taxonomy to a single dimension taxonomy just as a camera takes a three dimensional space and collapses it to a two dimensional image. I also mentioned the the mapping rules in the rules set are prioritized. Going back to our camera, we know the objects in front will block objects in the back of our image. So with our taxonomy camera, mapping rules at the top of the order will override or block rules lower in the order. Now let us look around at how our businesses are run. Most businesses have a sales team. At our business, the sales team are managing directors and they do much more than just sales. Sales teams are given jurisdictions so as to keep them from stepping on each others toes. Depending on what a businesses product is, a business can define these sales jurisdictions by geography or by specialty based on domain knowledge. Taxonomies will not help define geographic sales territories, but if your business defines sales jurisdictions based on what the clients are (as opposed to where they are), you can use Mapping Rules Sets. Our team has defined a simplified taxonomy which describes the different practice groups, and then a mapping rules set that maps from our multi-dimensional taxonomy onto the simplified taxonomy. As anyone might know, the agreed upon rules for defining sales territories can be quite intricate and often contested, and using prioritized rules sets will help to define as broadly or narrowly any businesses sales territories. This pecking order of rules can be used to allocate leads to our sales teams in a consistent and efficient manner.