EQUIPMENT PROCESS TRANSITION

FOR CORPORATE LEADERS

HALEY HARBAUGH
NOVEMBER 26, 2014

PROBLEM
Equipment comes in, and equipment goes out. My company is a leader in global healthcare and
innovation. For the past two years, I have handled equipment distribution and returns from a
single location for this company, which employs over 500 teammates spread throughout the
entire country. For such an innovative company that has so many process flows, project maps,
and procedural requirements, there was never any direction for equipment provisioning. No
tracking of the equipment or devices being sent and received, only switching the phone lines and
users as the equipment changed hands.
When I started with the company, a little over two years ago, I was shown how to send equipment
and where to store it in the office. I was new to the organization and had never handled
equipment distribution for a company before. Not too much thought went into how we were
tracking any of it, nor did management seem to recognize the potential HIPAA violations that
could occur if there was no tracking method implemented. As time progressed, I became a
Compliance Champion for my organization. The realization that these devices needed to be
properly managed became apparent, a change was necessary. For a short time, there was a paper
form that was required to be filled in for each device being returned. However, that form did not
address the outgoing equipment, therefore, a vacancy for knowing the whereabouts of devices
re-distributed to the field existed. In addition to not knowing who had what devices in their
possession, the billing department became overrun with issues of knowing which devices should
still be activated with cell phone or air card services, and which ones should be terminated.
Looking at the current process, I could see a change would be beneficial for myself, the team,
and the broader corporation. The obvious areas that could use improvement were tracking of
equipment, determining which devices could have service terminated, creating better
communication between my team and the field teammates, and refining inventory processes.

Page 1|8

INTERVENTION
With my experience as a Quality Assurance Analyst and Compliance Champion, I spoke with our
IT department to see if there was any way to create a ticket system for this process through a
secure portal that we currently use for other IT requests. After creating a build request for the
IT department to create a specific portal for my organizations equipment provisioning, IT
confirmed this would be a viable option for what we were hoping to achieve. I then had to bring
this project plan to my manager and the Director of the organization for approval. As the approval
process was going through the proper channels, I identified my goals for this change:
A. Streamline the equipment return, requests, and loaning process
B. Decrease the amount of money spent on devices each month that no longer needed to
be active
C. Create a clear and concise method for the Quality Assurance team to communicate with
the field teammates regarding their equipment requests
D. Limit the amount of equipment with unknown whereabouts
E. Provide tracking for the equipment
Luckily, the internal IT portal that teammates currently create the tickets in, was built by my IT
department, so no cost was accumulated for this change. My Director and management
approved of the change and I began working with an IT project manager to begin work on a
change intervention. As mentioned before, a project plan and guideline for the necessary
components of the ticket creation were completed by myself, and submitted to the IT project
manager who would be building the equipment portal. This project was expected to take
anywhere between two weeks and three months. Internal email, phone, and instant messaging,
between myself and the IT project manager, was used to coordinate the updates, discuss
revisions, and ultimately finalize the portal completion.

EVALUATION
Evaluation of the change was initially going to be based off of feedback from the training that
followed the implementation. However, it was deemed by management and our training
department that a training was not necessary. A new evaluation of the change was handled by a
survey tool provided to each manager directly affected by the change. Some items we hope to
identify through this evaluation are displayed in Figure 1.1.

Page 2|8

Figure 1.1

> Were you aware of the

process change prior to this
evaluation?

> Were the instructional

materials provided for the
change sufficient to implement
this change successfully?

> Was the purpose for the

change clearly explained?

> Rate your level of knowledge

with the new equipment
process.

Depending on the answers from this survey, I can hope

to gauge the success of the intervention and respond
to the evaluation appropriately. Additionally, we can
use the tickets that are submitted to evaluate the
success of the change. Meaning, if tickets are
consistently being submitted incorrectly, then there
would be a strong indication that there was a lapse in
the change intervention process, and a need for
additional training. In my immediate team, there are
four of us who handle different management
territories for our company. Ideally, I want to get realtime feedback from the managers on bi-weekly team
calls, through interviews, to see where there might be
any disconnects with the new change process. Once
each of the four of us has those interviews, we can then
compile a document for training and leadership to
examine and determine where there are discrepancies
and how we can alleviate any recurring issues.

Essentially, the evaluation will consist of interviews,

surveys, and observation of the participants, which may or may not be limited to management
across the organization. Other key stakeholders may include field teammates, Directors, and
other training personnel. If the change begins to affect more than just the anticipated
management stakeholders, additional evaluation should be considered for an integrated scope
on how the change affects the broader organization. Estimated time for this intervention to be
completed, and assessed is about six to nine months.

FINDINGS
After a two month implementation of a new ticket portal for equipment requests, returns, and
loans, I conducted a survey to the users. User experience was captured from the front end and
the back end of the ticketing portal, meaning the teammates in the field who used this portal
were surveyed, in addition to the team who handles the ticket submissions. The questions for
the survey are outlined in Appendix A, and 15 people were surveyed through company email
using a Google Forms survey, with nine responses received. Out of the nine responses, only two
people had not used the portal at all, which left seven pieces of feedback to analyze. Based on
responses from the seven individuals, they rated the portal as a 3.7 out of 5 in overall user
friendliness. This rating was higher than anticipated, but showed that half of the individuals who
Page 3|8

use the portal feel that it is easy to use and they are able to navigate the system without many
issues.
In regards to the second goal of the change project, it is currently unknown if there are any
relatable cost savings as of yet. The change process needs to be implemented for the entire
quarter to obtain cost related effects of this change. However, there has been increased
awareness among teammates and managers to mitigate active cell phones and MIFI devices that
are no longer assigned to teammates in the field. With a strategy to remind managers to cancel
service from inactive devices, using a pop-up located in the equipment ticket, this practice will
allow application of this goal.
Communication was a key aspect of this change project. There needed to be a clear line of
communication with the IT department who activates, transfers, and terminates service of cell
phones and other wireless devices. Creating a process with IT took multiple phone calls and
meetings to ensure that the team handling the tickets understood what the IT department
needed as far as device IDs, in addition to discussions regarding the role of my team for
transferring service of returned devices. This process of communication with the IT group seemed
to be the lengthiest part of this change project. Discussions and meetings took place over a four
week time frame. Eventually a process flow and instructions were created to identify roles and
processes designated for both teams. Once the back end users had a clear communication
guideline, the front end of communication needed to be strengthened. All correspondence
between the parties involved with the ticket was done as email through the ticket portal. This
allowed for tracking each response in the ticket and notifications were also generated from this
ticket to notify the front end user and back end users of any changes within the ticket. Per some
of the comments from the survey responders, it is apparent that communication is still lacking
when equipment is received.
Creation of a portal that tracks the equipment was a main priority of this change project. So far,
this portal assisted with the return of at least 45 devices, but the tracking piece of this is still
lacking in connecting the piece of equipment that comes in with the device ID and tracking this
device if it is sent back out into the field. Also, using the ticket system as a tracking method is
only as good as the information that is entered into the ticket. If the back end user fails to update
the device ID information, then there is missing data that may never get entered again. The
findings for this portion of the change project are still undeveloped and require additional
training on the system to see if any added tracking options are available for use.
I am still questioned on the application and use of the portal, with regards to ticket submission
and what information is needed. Users do not indicate that they need assistance or additional
training with ticket submission, and one-off questions are resolved quickly and tickets are being
submitted correctly. In an instance that a teammate needed additional training on the portal, I
Page 4|8

was able to view the front end from a teammate perspective and understand how to navigate
from their end as well. That information was useful to understand what the front end users see
and how to explain the ticket portal to them on their level. Based on feedback, it is apparent that
there needs to be some tweaking to the interface to allow for more data to be entered on the
front end. On my direct team, there was discussion of adding a field for distribution of tickets on
the back end, but after email conversation, there was a consensus that no additional field was
needed for equal distribution purposes. Overall, the change project has many obstacles to
overcome. This project will need to be honed and fine-tuned for beneficial changes to occur in
regards to tracking inventory of company issued equipment and handling communications.

CONCLUSION
Based on the change effort, management decided that the best
way to ensure tracking for company equipment would be to
transition this duty to the internal IT department. After four
months of the change process implementation, there were still
several tracking mechanisms that were not being followed by my
team when equipment was sent out or returned. Because of the
necessity to streamline and create consistency with equipment
processing, an internal IT group took over any equipment needs.

LESSONS LEARNED
COMMUNICATION
EDUCATION
FOLLOW THROUGH

My recommendation for this process to be successful is to ensure that all parties involved obtain
adequate training and understand their role with the new process. No formal training was done
with the back end or front end users, so the additional training may have mitigated the
equipment tracking errors. Also, communication between the internal IT department and my
immediate team regarding service cancellation and approvals could be improved by allowing the
ticket to go directly to the internal IT group as well as my team. If all parties are aware of the
equipment coming in or going out, then there should be fewer instances of miscommunication.
Because some of the respondents mentioned lack of follow through when sending in the ticket,
I recommend increased communication, or auto-generated communication from the portal to
ensure the front end user is aware their ticket was submitted properly and was received. By
maintaining a consistent response with all teammates, this should develop trust in the change.
Additionally, a standard timeframe for response and follow through would also create a standard
of execution that the field team would become accustomed to and appreciate knowing how
soon your ticket will be handled shows dependability.
Since this change process has transitioned to a different department, I can only offer suggestions
to assist them going forward. I believe that training or education, communication, and follow
through are key to the success of this change process. Innovation in the equipment tracking
Page 5|8

process is constantly changing, so my last recommendation for the IT group is to figure out if
there is a way to use the information input into the system, by the front end user, as a library for
equipment and use it for inventory controls by the back end user. If you have a generic list of
devices to choose from, then that will diminish the amount of incorrectly documented devices.

APPENDIX A
SURVEY FORM

Page 6|8

APPENDIX B
SURVEY RESULTS
Question 1 - Have you used the new Service Now Equipment portal?
Figure 1.2

Use

Yes

No

Question 2 - In the spirit of continuous improvement, what do you feel can be done to improve
the Service Now Equipment portal?
Figure 1.3

I knew I had to use it but it was hard to find. Also, I don't believe I tecieved confirmation that my package was received by
pathways
Unsure, only used once
A selection tab could be added instead of being a general tab
Have a place for the TM to enter the tracking number for the item. When an item is received, notify the TM/manager.

Question 3 - Any additional comments regarding the Service Now Equipment Portal?
Figure 1.4

Emails confirming the ticket give no clue as to what the ticket is about. Only a ticket number.
Was confused that it was in VillageHealth section and not IT, but now that I know...works good.

Page 7|8

Question 4 - Rate the user friendliness of the new Service Now Equipment portal
Figure 1.5

User Satisfaction

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Not User Friendly

Somewhat User
Friendly

Fairly User Friendly Mostly User Friendly Very User Friendly

Number of Users

Page 8|8