The article relates specifically to running deprecation in parallel (in two systems) for one entity:
We always recommend a changeover so that Asset.Guru becomes your single source of asset related truth, however what is more important is that your depreciation is done in only one system.
In real life, some operational teams use Asset.Guru to simply track and manage their assets and either:
1. don't need a depreciation tool, or
2. that depreciation is handled by a legacy system by an outside/outsourced team.
But wait, why can't I run two systems simultaneously? The answer is more practical... Using two depreciation systems (no matter what they may be) is not supported by Asset.Guru as there are major risks:
1. Reconciliation headaches: Your fixed asset account will probably not add up. This could be for any reason, including asset duplication, differences in dates/times, data input errors or slight legitimate differences in the way systems calculate asset depreciation. Asset.Guru never promises to match the way any other system is handled, we only have control of our own depreciation calculation methods.
2. Depreciation over or under statement on financials. If using two systems, then the two sets of assets are prone to duplication (or missing assets) and therefore this could lead to an overstatement or understatement of depreciation
So the answer is more practical than technical.
The decision is yours, we don't mind as there is value in Asset.Guru in using our depreciation engine, but it is only one of the many benefits. We do so much more than depreciation :-)