Ensure that asset management supports the needs of InControl

[rafehi]

We need to ensure that asset management supports the requirements of InControl, while keeping it general enough to be useful as a standalone product.

Things to consider:

• Asset management must support use cases required by InControl
• Asset management must not be tied to InControl use cases (InControl specific functionality should exist outside of asset management)
• Ensure that InControl can interchange between this project and other asset management platforms
  • if we provide a very unique feature set, how will we make it interchangeable with other asset management platforms?

[NRaf]

On that last point, I don't think we ever want to tie InControl directly with a user's existing asset management platform. It introduces way too many variables into the mix (i.e. performance, uptime, people making changes that could break out use-cases, network latency, etc).

The desired approach, I'd think, will be to make it easy for users to import their existing asset data into InControl and keep it in sync.

Given that we are building this to support InControl, a key consideration is what does InControl actually need. Is it an asset management platform that we're building or something else?