How Tech Corp Reduced Asset Delivery Exceptions by 60%
Real-world example: a Fortune 500 technology company eliminated Excel-based tracking and achieved near-perfect delivery rates with the ITAL platform.
Snapshot
| Industry | Technology / Software |
|---|---|
| Employees onboarded/offboarded annually | High-volume, across multiple hiring cycles a year |
| Locations | Multiple cities across India |
| Previous system | Manual tracking via Excel and courier email threads |
| Result | 60% reduction in delivery exceptions, near-perfect on-time delivery |
The problem: visibility that lived in a spreadsheet
Before working with Globe, Tech CorpтАЩs IT operations team managed asset deployment the way most fast-growing companies do тАФ a shared Excel sheet tracking which laptop went to which new hire, updated manually whenever someone remembered to, and cross-referenced against courier confirmation emails scattered across individual inboxes.
At the companyтАЩs hiring volume, this broke down predictably. Delivery exceptions тАФ devices delayed, misrouted, or delivered without a confirmed signoff тАФ were a routine part of every hiring cycle, each one requiring a member of the IT team to manually chase the courier, check the spreadsheet, and follow up with the employee to confirm what had actually happened. Asset reconciliation at quarter-end routinely surfaced devices nobody could account for, because тАЬdeliveredтАЭ on a courierтАЩs system was never verified against the employee who was supposed to receive it.
A client quote goes here once you have one approved тАФ something specific to the before/after, from whoever owned this on Tech CorpтАЩs side (Head of IT Ops or similar) lands better than a generic testimonial line.
What changed
Tech Corp moved asset deployment onto GlobeтАЩs ITAL platform, which replaced the spreadsheet-and-email process with a single tracked workflow:
- Asset records synced automatically from Tech CorpтАЩs ITAM system, so dispatch always worked from current data instead of a manually updated sheet.
- Delivery scheduled against confirmed joining dates, pulled directly from HRIS, instead of a generic тАЬship when readyтАЭ instruction.
- Device-specific packing standards applied consistently across every shipment, regardless of which warehouse it originated from.
- Verified handover at the door тАФ asset ID matched and signed for by the named employee, not just marked тАЬdeliveredтАЭ by the courier.
- Real-time status synced back to ITAM, closing the loop automatically instead of at manual quarter-end reconciliation.
The IT teamтАЩs role shifted from chasing individual shipments to monitoring a live dashboard, with exceptions flagged automatically instead of discovered after the fact.
The results
- 60% reduction in delivery exceptions, measured against the prior period under the manual process.
- Near-perfect on-time delivery, replacing a rate that had been inconsistent enough to need constant manual follow-up.
- Meaningful time back for the IT operations team, who were previously spending a recurring chunk of every week chasing shipment status by phone and email.
- Quarter-end reconciliation that used to take days now takes hours, with no unaccounted devices in the most recent audit cycle.
Why it worked
The underlying shift wasnтАЩt a faster courier тАФ it was closing the specific gaps that generic shipping processes leave open: no link between the asset record and the shipment, no verification that the right person actually received the right device, and no automatic sync back to the system of record. Each of those gaps is where an тАЬexceptionтАЭ was quietly created under the old process; removing them removed most of the exceptions.
Takeaway
Excel and courier tracking work at small volume. Past a certain hiring and offboarding rate, the manual reconciliation step becomes the bottleneck тАФ and the cost isnтАЩt just IT team hours, itтАЩs the asset visibility gap that shows up at audit time. Tech CorpтАЩs result is what closing that gap with a purpose-built platform looks like in practice.