How best to handle "cart based" devices

  • 21 October 2022
  • 7 replies

So we have 2 sets of 30 iPads.  


They are in Shared iPad mode, and are not owned by anyone.  


I have some various asset views that are looking for devices without an owner, because I would ultimately like for *most* things to either have an owner assigned, or to be somehow configured as a fixed “room asset” 

How would you configure these things so that they don’t show up in some of those Asset Views that I have.  

As an FYI, we have JAMF School, and have done the integration into iIQ as well.  


Thanks in advance. 

7 replies

Userlevel 4
Badge +1

@RTSD26_AllynJ Thank you for submitting your question!

I have an idea here that talks about assigning assets to rooms without leaving the owner blank. 

Please let me know if this is what you are looking for. 😄


I think that idea addresses part of the issue.  

I think since these devices are also in a Cart, that the workflow I need also likely should leverage “Linked Assets” as well.  So that the iPads are linked to the Cart, than the cart would benefit from your idea as it’s being described.  Hopefully that makes sense.  

Userlevel 4
Badge +1

@RTSD26_AllynJ I agree that linking the carts and Chromebooks would be beneficial to this workflow you are trying to create. 


@TAnders You commented this on a thread about linking iPads with iPencils. “If they are separate assets, linking the two together would be our best practice. Just like a Chromebook Cart with Chromebooks linked to it. It will give you better tracking and inventory, if one gets damaged you can unlink it and make a note of why, then link the replacement to it.” 

Would you be willing to provide more information for our Community Member working on linking Chromebooks and carts? 

Userlevel 5
Badge +2

What we are currently doing is creating the Cart’s Name and Room number as a “Room” at the site, you can then assign them to that room, or create a “Room 4” asset and check it out to that asset, then it will not show as unassigned. We are using the Rooms to map back to Google and put them back into Cart OUs in our Google Admin Console, it is a lot of setup, but will be worth it in the long run since you can just edit the name of the Room if you move a cart, and the mapping will remain the same.


We also have our Chromebooks linked to the actual Cart Asset, but currently there is not an Export linked assets function, if that is something you are interested in, check out this enhancement request and add some feedback there, hopefully we can get that implemented.

I am somewhat confused.  


What’s the purpose/benefit for making the rooms themselves an “asset” Or do you make the rooms a “virtual user”.  

Cause I didn’t know that you could check an asset out, to another asset.   Linking them yes, but “owning them” doesn’t make much sense.  

Userlevel 5
Badge +2

You mentioned your view was based off the assets being unassigned, so I added creating a virtual Room asset to be the owner so you could organize your view that way.



I wound up creating several “local users” within the Incident IQ system, they all have a prefix of “VU” for Virtual User, and I am assigning those assets to that virtual user.   

Our Main office Assets are primarily the Security Camera “Live View” Workstations that are mounted behind a larger monitor that is wall mounted.  I will likely add some of the other “room specific” assets, like our digital signage related items.   

To help be sure that physical assets still align to their correct buildings, all but the “TimeClock Terminals” leverage their real world physical location.   


The TimeClock terminals are scattered across several buildings and locations, but once they are deployed, they are in kiosk mode and basically will stay there until the device goes End of Support by Google.  Then we replace them.  To be honest, I am not 100% sure why I created the “LRC Assets” perhaps to have some future proofing for things like “Class VR Kits” and stuff like that.   


So if this is what you were suggesting, than I wound up agreeing with you.  :D