@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.  

@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? 

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.  

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.

Gotcha.  

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 

@RTSD26_AllynJ 

Has this setup proven successful?

Short Version - successful for some types of devices, when you have a desire to try and build out views to identify “Non-Deployed” devices type of thing.   Longer answer below.  

So if we look back to the root cause of the issue, which is to be able to create an Asset View of specific types of assets, filter by “no owner” and not get confused I think that this indeed helps with that scenario for sure.  

If we start to look at some “hybrid scenarios” - I am unsure if this implementation benefits.  

Let’s look at IP Phones that is not a Cisco Call Manager Stack, Running on full stack Cisco, and properly configured, to ensure that any extension could call 911, and the fully configured switch stack can ensure that the E911 “Physically Dispatchable Location” information is always accurate…   

Let’s look at more typical cloud providers in which you need to basically Pin an Extension to a Physically Dispatch-able Location (versus a person).  If you then use hard phones, you have a phone that needs to be pinned to a room.   

In a perfect world, it would be nice if that phone can dynamically follow around whoever is in that room, but given that requires a whole bunch of meta data that I don’t think our iIQ environment even has access to.  So for something like that it’s a little confusing, and you have to figure out what workflow makes the most sense.   Now perhaps you could create a view that tries to identify “null room location data” but I haven’t experimented with that yet.  

Hope this gives you what you are looking for.