Before version 15.100, Assets and CIs behaved as a single, synchronised entity: any modification made to an Asset was automatically reflected in the corresponding CI. This synchronisation also extended to module associations. For example, when an Asset was linked to a change, that association was visible and maintained consistently across both the Assets module and the CMDB.

Since version 15.100, this behaviour has changed significantly. Associations to components such as changes and requests are no longer synchronised and are not included in the synchronisation rules. In addition, a separate “CIs involved” field has been introduced alongside the existing “Assets involved” field. As a result, maintaining consistent relationships between Assets and CIs now requires the same information to be entered and maintained in both fields, creating duplication, additional administrative effort, and a greater risk of data inconsistency.

To mitigate this limitation, I currently use the “CIs involved” field as the primary user input and disable or hide the “Assets involved” field. After a change is submitted, a custom trigger and function automatically create the corresponding Asset associations. The same logic is executed again when the change is closed to ensure that any updates made to the CIs during the workflow are also reflected in the associated Assets.

Given that Assets and CIs are intended to represent the same underlying entities, this approach feels like a workaround rather than a sustainable solution. Is there an alternative method, particularly within the Change Management process, that avoids the need for custom development and duplicate maintenance? Additionally, is there a roadmap or planned enhancement to restore automatic association synchronisation between CIs and Assets, ideally eliminating the requirement to populate and maintain both fields separately?  

According to the SDP 15.100 release notes:

CI Associations

·        In Problems, Changes, and Releases, data from the Assets Involved and Services Affected fields will be automatically copied to the CIs Involved field.

However, after selecting "Assets Involved" and updating the change, the "CIs Involved" field remained empty, and the association to the change in the CMDB is still missing.

I do not think this is the ideal solution, but if it worked as expected, it would remove the need for custom code and the effort required to maintain it.