Asset Owner vs Asset Manager

[JackBeers_III]

In most cases that I've seen, the asset owner is the asset manager. Where if any, when dealing with Water and Waste water data models, would the asset owner be different than the asset manager?  If a utility company does not have assets that are not managed by the owner, would there be a problem within the editing templates to remove the Asset Manager fields/domain?

[JoshWhite]

I actually removed both of those fields.  I'm only interested in assets maintained by the City.  I do have some information that is managed by others but as far as GIS goes, that is very low priority information.  Leave that sort of thing to the utilities departments.

[JackBeers_III]

@Josh, thanks for your response.  The client is a local water and sewer company with assets county wide. While creating their model, they noticed that the domains were the same for both asset owner vs asset manager.  I guess it was hard to explain that even though they don't have assets that are managed by different owners now it doesn't mean they won't have any in the future.  I think we are going to keep it in because they have 10 different possiblities for asset owner and I could see where an issue could come up in the future with maintaining an asset at their tie points of other asset owners.

[JoshWhite · Accepted solution]

I actually used these fields at first and then I realized the redundancy for my areas and decided it was unimportant.  I also noticed edited the domain to be more meaningful for my city.  I've found that many domains in the LGIM are suited for larger population areas and so I've had to modify many of them.  The key to remember is that LGIM is a framework and data model.  It can be modified to meet specific needs and can be done relatively easily.