Fragmented ownership across healthcare technology systems can strain HTM teams, underscoring the need for clearer accountability and better coordination among technology partners.
By Eric Grunden, chief client officer at Intelerad
Healthcare IT is a complex world, and no single vendor holds the keys to the entire kingdom. In diverse, modern hospital ecosystems, platforms like electronic health records, picture archiving and communication systems, and vendor-neutral archives must coexist with AI applications and various other technologies.
In many organizations, healthcare technology management (HTM) and clinical engineering teams are responsible for keeping these complex, multi-vendor environments running—often serving as the connective tissue between IT, clinicians, and technology suppliers.
For vendors, delivering a strong client experience in this blended atmosphere requires more than responsive support or well-designed products. It requires organizations to take responsibility for the full experience clients live with every day, including how third-party vendors, legacy systems, and new innovations work together behind the scenes.
In medical imaging specifically, partnership strategy is most successful when positioned as a service discipline. With an approach grounded in accountability, transparency, and a willingness to own outcomes on behalf of clients, technology vendors can shift from transactional solution providers to true partners.
The Cost of Fragmented Ownership is High
In intricate imaging environments, a single radiology workflow might touch half a dozen or more tools, often created by different organizations. When these vendors operate in silos and something goes wrong, trust can erode quickly as the companies scramble to determine what happened and who needs to fix it.
If an integration fails or a workflow slows down, for example, the network provider may blame the software provider, who could, in turn, attribute the issue to the hardware vendor. Meanwhile, health systems—often through their HTM teams—are caught in the middle, trying to reconcile conflicting guidance while patient care is put on hold.
This fragmentation creates an operational burden on health systems. Instead of focusing on work that supports better clinical outcomes, HTM leaders, IT directors, and department heads act as intermediaries and system integrators. Too often, this coordination falls to already-stretched HTM leaders, who are expected to troubleshoot across vendors while still maintaining uptime, regulatory compliance, and patient safety. Episodes like these damage the client experience and create real risk. Downtime or data transfer delays are certainly inconvenient, but moreover, they’re a patient safety issue.
Research shows medication errors can spike by up to 30% due to downtime, and care can be held up by as much as 20 minutes—challenges that can translate into missed diagnoses and slower treatment. When every minute matters, those delays can be critical.
In addition, interoperability barriers and disparate systems contribute heavily to clinician burnout, administrative waste, and excessive spending. The US healthcare system actually loses over $30 billion annually due to poor data interoperability. Vendors that won’t look beyond their own four walls to help solve complex issues aren’t protecting their scope of work—they’re failing clients and driving up costs.
The Best Partnerships Are Often Invisible
The most effective healthcare technology partnerships are often invisible to the end user, disappearing into the background as they make experiences effortless. When loading images or checking prior studies, radiologists don’t want to think about the complexity of HL7 messages, DICOM standards, or APIs. They just want the process to be seamless.
Technology usage should provide continuity, clarity, and confidence, made possible by partners who own outcomes from start to finish. Becoming “invisible” requires complete accountability from vendors that won’t hesitate to step up when complications arise. While these partnerships may be invisible to clinicians, they depend on close coordination with HTM teams that understand how systems interact across the enterprise. Clients who report an issue shouldn’t be redirected elsewhere. They should be reassured that the source of the problem will be investigated and resolved in collaboration with other vendors as needed.
This level of ownership separates organizations that prioritize shared accountability from standard solution providers. It necessitates a willingness to troubleshoot a glitch that may not even originate with the vendor that first learns of it—because they understand that client success depends on the entire ecosystem working in harmony.
Operational Alignment is the Backbone of Trust
Relationships defined by shared expectations around service quality, escalation protocols, and accountability create operational alignment that builds trust. To move from vendor status to strategic partner, healthcare technology companies must ensure their models mirror their clients’ realities. This involves a few important shifts, such as:
- Proactive vs reactive support: In a traditional model, support is reactive. When something breaks, the client calls, and the vendor fixes it. In a partnership model, the vendor utilizes predictive monitoring to identify irregularities before they impact the user.
- Transparent escalation plans: Users need to know how issues are triaged, who handles them, and how they’re escalated if necessary. Providing clients with access to senior leadership shouldn’t be seen as a risk, but rather as reassurance that their business matters.
- Shared governance: Regular business reviews must go beyond uptime reports to include the discussion of strategic goals. Knowing whether a client is trying to expand into a new region or acquire a practice enables technology partners to prepare so growth doesn’t become a pain point.
HTM leaders evaluating technology partners can’t conclude their research after verifying a product’s feature list. Instead, ask potential vendors about their support and accountability philosophies, including how they handle multi-vendor disputes and whether they take ownership of an issue until the cause is identified, even if it might not have originated with their solution. Their responses should make it clear they prioritize partnership and service over transactions.
In crowded markets, where many competing products have similar features, the way clients are treated becomes the main differentiator. Organizations that stand behind the broader industry framework deliver more predictable, stable user experiences, which underpin long-term success, retention, and ultimately, client-obsessed service. Those who embrace it understand their jobs aren’t finished when the solution is installed—that’s just the starting line. The real work is ensuring products still deliver value as the client’s environment changes, regulations shift, and patient volumes grow.
About the Author: Eric Grunden is the chief client officer at Intelerad and has nearly 30 years of leadership experience in customer success, professional services, and operations. He has held leadership roles at Uptempo, ResMed, Civitas Learning, Greenway Health, and Medical Manager. He earned a bachelor’s degree in business administration and information systems from Texas Tech University.
ID 120431922 © Alphaspirit | Dreamstime.com
