The current way how the companies in RMS is structured, is causing issues with our organization structure.
Our company (C1) has a customer (C2) which has a few RUTX10 devices.
C1 only does development and support for that customer (C2), so the devices are owned and maintained by C2 themselves.
C1 only does some vpn connections or configuration updates to C2 RUTX10 devices every now and then.
Also C1 has some of their own projects which have RUTX10’s.
C1 obviously does not want to expose those to C2.
Now in a perfect scenario, C2 would create their own RMS account and invite email adresses from C1. But that is not possible, because if john.doe@c1.com already needs to be invited to C1 to manage their RUTX10’s, then C2 can’t invite john.doe@c1.com anymore.
The question(s):
How can I structure companies to achieve john.doe@c1.com having access to C1 and C2 devices and max.mustermann@c2.com having access to only C2 devices?
Is RMS even capable of doing this?
To confirm, C1 and C2 are two completely separate companies, meaning that C2 is not set up as a secondary (child) company under C1, right? In other words, C1 is not the parent company of C2 in RMS.
The reason I’m asking is that if C2 were configured as a secondary company of C1 (the primary), then users from C1 would automatically be able to manage C2’s devices, while users from C2 would not have visibility or access to devices belonging to C1.
In short, if C2 operates as a daughter company under C1 in RMS, users from C1 can manage devices within C2, but the reverse is restricted.
Your solution of C2 being a daughter company of C1 would be a viable solution, thank you!
However I’d rather have C1 and C2 be totally separate, so C2 can decide themselves whether C1 users should should still have access to their devices.
This is not possible, because if john.doe@c1.com is part of C1, C2 could not invite that email as it is already in use.
The point I’m trying to make is that currently C1 has full power and ownership over the devices of C2, even though it is technically not their property.
In an ideal scenario C1 should just do the ‘management/support‘ for those devices. However, with the daughter-company solution if C2 decides they want another company to do their support, they are still dependant on cooperation of C1.