Decide whether or not an Asset Layout is required for Documentation Quality

Strongly agree — this is one of the biggest blockers to meaningful documentation quality auditing.

Documentation quality scoring breaks down in real-world MSP environments because not all asset layouts are universally applicable to every client.

A common example is integration-driven asset layouts (e.g., Google Workspace). These layouts may be automatically created or expected by Hudu, but many clients simply do not use those platforms. As a result, documentation quality scores are penalized for assets that are intentionally irrelevant.

This creates two major problems:

1. Inaccurate quality metrics — scores don’t reflect actual documentation health.

2. Inability to operationalize quality initiatives — for example, we cannot fairly set team goals or incentives like “all clients must maintain 4-star documentation or higher” if the scoring model itself is flawed.

Because of this, documentation quality becomes something we want to measure, but can’t confidently act on.

Proposed Solution: Good / Better / Best

Good (Fastest, Lowest Effort, High Impact)

Allow Asset Layouts (globally) to have a simple “Include in Documentation Quality: True / False” flag.

This would:

• Immediately fix inaccurate scoring caused by irrelevant layouts

• Be easy to understand and manage

• Likely require minimal UI and calculation changes

This alone would unlock meaningful documentation quality tracking for many MSPs.

Better (More Accurate, Automation-Friendly)

Allow conditional logic on Asset Layout inclusion, for example:

• “If Microsoft 365 Environment is populated, ignore Google Workspace layout”

This improves accuracy and works well with automated integrations and mixed client environments, though it comes with higher development complexity.

Best (Most Accurate, Still Predictable)

Implement Good, but allow client-specific overrides.

Example:

• Asset Layout default: Included in quality score

• Client override: Excluded for Client A

This provides consistent global standards while allowing accurate scoring based on each client’s actual environment.

Why This Is a Win-Win

• MSPs get documentation quality scores that are fair and actionable

• Hudu’s quality tracker becomes more trusted and valuable

• Development can be incremental, starting with a small, high-impact change

Even implementing just the “Good” option would materially improve the feature and unblock many MSPs from using documentation quality as a real KPI.