END OF LIFE TRACKER
PROJECT OVERVIEW
DEBT (Digital End-of-Life Business Tracker) was created to address a real, complex challenge in enterprise lifecycle management. Dell’s legacy Lifecycle Management (LCM) tool struggled with scalability, poor data integrity, and a lack of transparency, often relying on manual processes and multiple external platforms just to get basic work done.
The goal of this project was to design an intuitive and reliable platform that not only makes end-of-life asset tracking manageable, but actually empowers every role involved - from administrators curating datasets and planners coordinating workflows, to business owners and senior stakeholders needing clear, actionable reporting.
rather than just redesigning screens, this was about rethinking the entire EOL experience to reduce risk, lower operational costs, and provide a scalable solution for teams across the organisation.
MY ROLE
In leading this project, I owned the end-to-end UX process and collaborated closely with stakeholders to understand both the business impact and the human impact of the existing tool.
My role spanned discovery research, stakeholder engagement, framing the problem space, and shaping design strategy into tangible user experiences. I worked across functions to ensure that every interaction decision was grounded in real needs, balancing business priorities with user-centred design principles.
This meant steering workshops, synthesising research insights into outcomes that informed strategic decisions, and defining interaction patterns that would scale with Dell’s complex enterprise ecosystem.
THE CHALLENGE
When we began, the existing process for managing end-of-life assets was fragmented: users depended on a patchwork of spreadsheets, disconnected platforms, and extensive training documentation just to keep systems running.
The tool itself was described as slow and buggy, and it did little to inspire confidence that assets were being handled effectively.
Teams lacked clarity on responsibilities and timelines, and without a single source of truth, errors and delays were common.
Our work was a fundamental shift away from manual, error-prone workflows to a cohesive platform where reliability, clarity, and efficiency were built into every interaction.
RESEARCH
To truly understand the landscape we were designing for, we adopted a mixed-methods approach that gave voice to both quantitative trend and qualitative experience.
We reached out to a wide segment of users, running a survey that collected responses from over 400 participants to validate assumptions about roles and responsibilities. This was complemented by more than 80 hours of interviews and observation sessions with key users, allowing us to identify real pain points and map the end-to-end experience of the current workflow.
Auditing the existing data ecosystem and documenting user behaviours, we were able to unearth systemic issues.
KEY INSIGHTS
47% of application owners surveyed are not aware that there is an LCM tool, highlighting the need for increased awareness and education to ensure the successful adoption of the new tool.
-
Lack of Data Optimization, Availability, Trust, Quality, and Timeliness
-
Low transparency and trust of other teams
-
Too much documentation and formalized training
-
Not intuitive, buggy and slow
-
Not a single source of truth
-
Inefficient manual processes
-
High turnover, dependent on tribal knowledge and customized workflows
-
Current tool not scalable, is inflexible, cannot make improvements efficiently
-
Heavy reliance on MS Office and other systems
-
No proactive reporting
FRAMING
We framed the design challenge as an opportunity to disrupt the status quo of EOL processes. The core issue was the dependency on fragmented tools, external systems, and inconsistent workflows that discouraged adoption and introduced unnecessary complexity. By centring our design around a unified experience, we sought to eliminate the need for multiple platforms and reduce cognitive load. Our solution vision focused on automation, contextual guidance, and intuitive prioritisation so that users could make informed decisions without wrestling with the system.
Collaborating closely with stakeholders, we designed a streamlined interaction process that enables them to facilitate the decommission of assets in a timely and efficient manner through automation and systems integration, reducing or eliminating dependencies on manual processes, multiple platforms or external tools.
DESIGN STRATEGY
The EOL tool’s design strategy was built on clarity, efficiency and accountability. We focused on empowering users with structured information that prioritised their goals and reduced reliance on formal training.
Advanced filtering and customizable views ensured that users could slice and prioritise data in ways tailored to their needs, while visual representations like burndown charts gave planners and coordinators real-time progress insights. Interaction patterns were designed to feel familiar yet stripped of unnecessary complexity, with bulk actions and list views making common tasks quick and predictable.
Advanced filtering, sorting and the ability to save views provides optimized access to personalized information.
A Card View provides structured record information and status-based prioritization of action. This allows for quick and efficient decision-making, providing the ability to plan workloads to meet objectives and deadlines
Bulk Actions enable application owners to quickly and easily facilitate transactions for multiple records at once, saving invaluable time and effort
A list view provides record information in a familiar grid or table format. Application owners, business coordinators, and planners can access structured details for each record in an inline row
A burndown/ramp-up visualization provides planners, application owners and business coordinators with timely and proactive progress to plan information to ensure assets are managed efficiently.
Transparency and accountability are critical for ensuring that deadlines are met through access to progress to plan by status, owner and application levels
