LET'S CHAT OVER COFFEE - CALL US @ (925) 315-5678
Laptop showing a dark code editor theme page beside a black mug in a dimly lit room

End-to-End Technology Assessments

  • Current State & Performance EvaluationAnalyze existing technology and assess system performance to identify gaps and ensure future scalability.

  • IT Audit & Security AssessmentAudit IT environment and review cybersecurity measures for risk identification and compliance.

  • Application Review & Cost-Benefit Analysis Evaluate application portfolio and optimize technology investments for cost-effectiveness.

  • Future Vision & Roadmap Development Develop a future technology vision and create a strategic roadmap with actionable recommendations.

Get Started
CASE STUDY

Current State Assessment for Ohio Behavioral Health Data Modernization

Client Overview

Before the Ohio Department of Mental Health & Addiction Services (OhioMHAS) could plan a data modernization programme, it needed an honest account of what it already had. Acuvity Consulting ran that assessment from August 2023, as a subcontractor to Ardent Technologies.

Challenge

The department’s data moved between three groups with different systems, incentives and obligations — the department itself, the county ADAMH boards that fund local care, and the treatment providers who deliver it. Any assessment that looked only at technology would have produced a systems replacement plan for problems that were not technological. It had to cover four dimensions at once — technology, people, process and metrics — and reach people who had no particular reason to answer a survey from the department.

Solution

Three collection methods rather than one, so a finding from an interview could be tested against a document and a survey response before it was believed.

  • Documents and Systems

    Analyzed approximately 150 documents — strategic plans, system architectures, primers, policies, org charts and dashboards — and documented 15 process flows and 6 systems diagrams across the reporting, grants, claims and capital systems.

  • Interviews and Focus Groups

    16 stakeholder interviews reaching around 200 people across internal and external groups, plus four focus groups: three with county board representatives and one with behavioral health providers.

  • Surveys at Scale

    Four separate surveys designed for four audiences — county board claims teams, county board fiscal teams, treatment providers and advocacy groups — sent to 904 recipients, with 264 responses analyzed.
Three colleagues smiling while looking at a laptop in an office
Results

  • Findings, not impressions. More than 580 individual findings came out of the collection, each traceable to the document, interview or survey response it came from.

  • Classified by cause, not symptom. The findings reduced to more than 50 distinct pain points in 8 themes, and every theme was classified by whether it was fundamentally a people, process, technology or metrics problem, then mapped to the system it affected.

  • A baseline the client could argue with. Because each pain point carried its evidence, the department could test any conclusion against its source rather than accept or reject the assessment as a whole.

ConclusionAn assessment that only counts systems produces a shopping list. Classifying every finding by dimension is what separated the problems a new system would solve from the problems a new system would inherit, and that distinction shaped everything that came after it.