Asset Roles - More permission options and granular permission

[chrislord]

Hi

I understand there is two roles relating to asset management;

Asset Management Admin – This role is for an Asset Management Administrator. It includes rights to define new and edit existing Asset Types as well as being able to add detailed Asset information.

Asset Management User - This role is for an Asset Management User. It includes rights to define new and edit existing Assets as well as being able to add detailed Asset information.

We have many analysts who are required to update specific asset types and certain fields. Is it possible to provide granular accesses to assets, so only certain asset types can be updated or even a small number of fields?

The problem is we have many analysts who need to update assets and we can’t limit the scope of access meaning potential data quality and auditing issues.

Also, is there a read only role, so analysts can view not edit.

Thanks

Chris

[James Ainsworth]

Hi Chris, 

Thanks for your post.  We have an existing change in our backlog to provide a Asset Viewer role.  I've added your interest to this change.  Your other requirement is not so easy to deliver as a standard role as your requirements may be different from someone else's. 

Custom roles can be created which may allow you to control access to certain asset types, but this doesn't go down to the field level.  You can take a copy of the existing Asset Management User role and remove the access to tables that related to the different types. 

Using custom roles can however create an administration overhead as when we release new features in Asset Management, we would update our supplied roles with any changes, but this would not apply to your custom roles.

Regards,

James

[chrislord]

20 minutes ago, James Ainsworth said:

Hi Chris, 

Thanks for your post.  We have an existing change in our backlog to provide a Asset Viewer role.  I've added your interest to this change.  Your other requirement is not so easy to deliver as a standard role as your requirements may be different from someone else's. 

Custom roles can be created which may allow you to control access to certain asset types, but this doesn't go down to the field level.  You can take a copy of the existing Asset Management User role and remove the access to tables that related to the different types. 

Using custom roles can however create an administration overhead as when we release new features in Asset Management, we would update our supplied roles with any changes, but this would not apply to your custom roles.

Regards,

James

Thanks for your reply James.

A read only view is something we will definitely need, so thanks for adding our interest to that backlog item. Do you know the rough timescales on this?

Out of the box control of the asset classes / types seems like a sensible suggestion for a future feature.  For example we wouldn't want our desktop engineers having access to edit network assets and vice versa. We have 110 analysts who would need access to view assets and we are uncomfortable opening this up to everyone. As soon as we have inaccuracies in our CMDB its time consuming to rectify.  

Many Thanks

[James Ainsworth]

Hi Chris,

Items in the backlog don't have any timescales against them until they reach the development team.  The priority is driven by a number of factors, including the interest in the feature, so as more customers show their interested the more priority it has.  I'll be updating this post with any news of this progressing.  

Regards,

James

[Frank Reay]

+1 from me

[HHH]

+1 for the asset viewer role if I'm not already added

[Steve Giller]

@HHH You are!

[Sam P]

+1 for the asset viewer role, thanks

[Alisha]

+1 for the read only role. @James Ainsworth Do you have an update on timescales please?

[Nikolaj]

+1 for the asset viewer role, read only, not able to add new assets or update assets in our case.

Thanks

Nikolaj

[Paul Chambers]

+1

[Darren Stather]

For those waiting on the Asset Viewer role - may be worth registering your interest against this: