@PBauchan 650c0fd mvsd Thank you for submitting your question to our community!

Do you typically do these one at a time, or can you do them in bulk? I would suggest doing a CSV import of these new models at a time so you are not constantly creating new ones. 

I think the specific issue I’m running into is because we are doing this piecemeal and these devies are popping up one-by-one, updating in bulk is no more efficient than doing it manually.

Maybe my question is (or idea suggestion) is that in the case with Mosyle, for example, it already has a model name that is being pulled into iiQ, but its then an extra step to create the model in iiQ to then map it to that model. I’d like for iiQ to just create whatever model is missing based upon the information coming from Mosyle. Maybe I’m alone in this perspective, but it just seems needlessly burdensome to have to manually create the model in iiQ to then map it when I have that information being pulled in directly from Mosyle already.

@PBauchan 650c0fd mvsd Within Moysle, you can create a new model with your model mapping tab. Are you utilizing this function? 

This would be why I asked! I don’t know why I thought that did something else. So that certainly helps. I guess now I’m just being REALLY lazy and wondering if it can just automatically generate it based upon the information coming in from Mosyle. Basically Mosyle already has a consistent pattern for naming models and I just want iiQ to mirror whatever that is, automagically. API magic? I have no clue.

@PBauchan 650c0fd mvsd If it is API magic you are looking for, you will need to submit a ticket to our Tier 2 team, as they are the experts in that field (aside from @curtis.bohlmeyer @bclark @jclark @MattHenry if they have any insight on that). However, based on my research, there is no way to automate that process to automatically map them unless you create a new model each time. 

The initial mapping was a pain for us when onboarding, but that was the worst of it.

Now, since all device purchases get delivered to our office for asset tagging and inventory purposes before our techs deliver them to the schools, if something doesn’t show in iiQ we know to go look for a new model to map and correct it quickly before they leave for delivery. It also helps that we “try” to narrow our purchasing down to select models from year to year.

That’s about what I was thinking with all of this - most of our models are already in, and going forward we’ll more or less know exactly what we have. What I’ve been dealing with are those stragglers. It just felt like one of those places where automation would be so obvious to try - I mean the model names are right there! I just have to go through the extra step, and at least with regard to Mosyle we are willing to rely upon those model names. Not the end of the world but was wondering if anyone found a way to take out the needless busywork.

@PBauchan 650c0fd mvsd No way around it. We deal with the same thing. Typically, we’ll have a tech reach out the sysadmin team stating a device is missing from IIQ. That keys the sysadmin to check the Google/Mosyle device import setting for a new device model. It seems like this would be a good feature request. @Kathryn Carter Can you check with your team and see if there was a functional reason for requiring this manual mapping process or not allowing auto-mapping? I wonder if this was tried and broke things in previous IIQ iterations.