You are here:
Criteria and Process for Direct Asset Creation
Determine whether creating assets directly is better suited for your business scenario rather than the recommended order-led migration path, and understand the process for direct asset creation.
Criteria for Direct Asset Creation
Evaluate your data availability and business constraints to determine whether to create assets directly instead of the recommended order-led approach.
| Business Scenario | Create Assets Directly? | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Historical orders can be created and activated. |  No |
Order-based migration preserves standard behavior and is the safest path. |
| A full order history exists, but the data volume is large. | No |
Scale isn’t a technical blocker. Load and activate orders sequentially regardless of volume. |
| Billing in Revenue Management is available but historical billing is finalized. | No |
Create orders and activate them to generate billing schedules. If necessary, offset duplicate invoices with credit memos. |
| Partial order data exists, but the amendment history is missing. | Only if unavoidable |
Missing history risks incorrect lifecycle behavior. Attempt to reconstruct the history before choosing direct creation. |
| Orders can't be recreated due to legal implications or data-loss constraints. |  Yes |
This strategy is necessary when recreating history is impossible. |
| The goal is a delta-only migration, without legacy transactions. |  Rare |
Acceptable only if you validate that future amendments and billing references will remain functional. |
| The project timeline doesn't allow for rebuilding order history. | No |
Time pressure isn't a valid reason. Missing history increases downstream risk and rework. |
| Proof-of-concept or dry-run migration. | Limited |
Acceptable for testing mechanics, but not for the final migration to a production org. |
Did this article solve your issue?
Let us know so we can improve!
