For many colleges and universities, capital asset management has become a balancing act. Institutions are expected to maintain accurate asset records, satisfy increasingly rigorous compliance requirements, and demonstrate responsible stewardship of equipment purchased with institutional, state, and sponsored funding. Additionally, they need to do all this while operating with leaner teams and fewer resources.
Unfortunately, many asset management programs still rely on processes that haven’t evolved alongside those expectations. Barcode inventories, spreadsheets, paper disposition forms, and departmental self-certification often create more work than confidence, leaving property managers questioning whether their records truly reflect what’s happening across campus.
The University of Michigan reached that crossroads several years ago. Rather than continuing to refine an aging process, the university chose to rethink how capital asset accountability should work. By combining RFID technology with a purpose-built asset tracking software, the institution transformed not only how inventories were performed, but how assets were managed throughout their lifecycle.
The result demonstrates an important lesson for any institution evaluating RFID. Technology delivers its greatest value when it improves the entire asset management process, not just the inventory.
Before modernizing its program, the University of Michigan’s inventory process looked familiar to many higher education institutions.
Departments received spreadsheets, verified assets over a multi-year inventory cycle, and submitted updates manually. Property records were reconciled after inventories were completed, while asset disposition often relied on paper documentation moving between multiple departments.
The process worked—but only to a point.
With thousands of movable assets spread across multiple campuses, changes naturally occurred faster than records could be updated. Equipment moved between rooms. Researchers transferred assets to other institutions. Departments reorganized. Equipment was retired before paperwork caught up.
A preliminary assessment confirmed those concerns. Sampling revealed that asset records required updates, indicating the university’s inventory data wasn’t consistently staying synchronized with actual asset activity.
Rather than accepting those discrepancies as inevitable, the University viewed them as an opportunity to build a stronger capital asset management program.
The first step wasn’t simply purchasing RFID scanners.
Instead, the University focused on implementing technology that would improve how asset information was collected, verified, and maintained.
Passive RFID technology immediately addressed many of the frustrations associated with traditional barcode inventories. Because RFID tags do not require a direct line of sight, inventory teams could verify multiple assets simultaneously without physically moving equipment or searching for barcode labels hidden behind monitors, servers, or laboratory instruments.
That dramatically changed the inventory experience.
Server rooms containing hundreds of assets could be inventoried in a fraction of the time. Researchers no longer needed to interrupt experiments to locate barcodes. Even locked or densely populated spaces became significantly easier to verify.
During field inventories, university personnel along with their service provider, HCA Asset Management, routinely experienced inventory time reductions of 40 to 70 percent while creating noticeably less disruption for faculty, researchers, and departmental staff.
Just as importantly, passive RFID technology accomplished this without emitting continuous signals or interfering with sensitive research equipment. That’s one of the most common concerns raised by universities considering RFID.
The real transformation occurred after the scanner identified an asset.
Instead of collecting data for later reconciliation, inventory teams could immediately view asset information, confirm expected locations, update records, document changes, capture photographs, and verify supporting information directly from the field.
KEPR asset tracking software was used to support the inventory process and became just as important as the RFID technology itself.
By connecting inventory activities with ERP data, space information, and asset records, property professionals could make decisions while standing in front of the equipment rather than returning to the office to reconcile spreadsheets.
The University also approached implementation methodically.
Rather than gradually layering RFID onto aging records, it first established a comprehensive baseline inventory. Existing barcode records were cross-referenced with new RFID tags while every asset was physically verified. Proper tag placement ensured future readability, and outdated records were corrected before the new system became the operational standard.
The same philosophy extended to asset disposition. Electronic workflows and better coordination between property control and surplus operations helped ensure equipment leaving service was accurately documented and removed from active inventory records.
The operational improvements quickly translated into measurable results.
Following implementation, the University of Michigan completed a biennial inventory of approximately 27,000 capital assets while achieving a 98.1 percent accountability rate. Property control staff also gained something equally valuable–time.
Because inventories could be completed within months instead of years, the team could shift attention toward higher-value activities such as departmental outreach, spot checks, education, and continuous process improvement.
Instead of spending most of the inventory cycle trying to locate assets, staff could focus on preventing future discrepancies from occurring in the first place.
One of the strongest takeaways from the University’s experience is that capital asset accountability is never a once-every-two-years exercise.
Accurate records require continuous attention.
Following implementation, the University implemented inventory roadshows, department education, reference guides, and ongoing communication with campus stakeholders. Property control also developed a more robust spot-check process to reinforce accountability between full inventory cycles.
Technology made those initiatives easier by providing timely access to asset information and simplifying verification whenever questions arose.
Rather than waiting for the next inventory, departments could proactively maintain better asset records throughout the year.
Every institution’s capital asset management program is different, but many face the same challenges: limited staffing, increasing compliance expectations, decentralized operations, and thousands of movable assets spread across campus.
The University of Michigan’s experience demonstrates that RFID technology alone isn’t the answer.
The greatest value comes from combining RFID with software that connects inventory activities, asset records, documentation, and institutional workflows into a single, efficient process.
When technology supports better decisions—not just faster inventories—institutions gain more than operational efficiency. They strengthen capital asset accountability, improve audit readiness, reduce administrative burden, and create a more sustainable asset management program for the future.
Learn more about KEPR for Higher Education institutions or request a demo.
We use cookies on our website to personalize your experience, analyze site usage, and improve our marketing efforts. By continuing, you agree to the terms of our Privacy Policy
