What Good Looks Like (and Common Pitfalls)
Even with solid analysis and well-intentioned teams, many problems return—or were never truly solved in the first place. The difference usually lies not in the tools, but in the thinking quality applied during countermeasure design and implementation. In the previous article, we outlined the four-step process for developing and validating countermeasures. Yet in practice, several predictable mistakes undermine that logic. Teams brainstorm ideas and vote on favorites, skip the rigorous linkage between cause and countermeasure, or settle for administrative fixes that fade with time. Others rush to implement without evaluation or fail to assign ownership for follow-up. This article examines those pitfalls and, more importantly, what disciplined countermeasure thinking looks like in contrast.
What Good Looks Like: The EFT Pattern
Strong countermeasures share three universal qualities — they are Effective, Feasible, and Tested.
| Element | Description | Example | Coaching Question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effective | Directly addresses the verified cause; logic chain is clear and reversible. | Redesigning a connector to eliminate mix-ups rather than retraining operators. | “Does this action truly break the causal link?” |
| Feasible | Realistic given the organization’s resources and process maturity; can be sustained without heroics. | Installing a simple limit switch instead of a full automation overhaul. | “Can this solution survive normal conditions and turnover?” |
| Tested | Implemented and verified under real working conditions before full rollout. | Running a short PDCA pilot to confirm performance and detect side effects. | “What evidence do we have that it actually works?” |
The EFT pattern ensures countermeasures move beyond good intentions to verified learning. It complements the ADP hierarchy by emphasizing that effectiveness without verification is still speculation.
Five Common Pitfalls in Countermeasure Thinking
1. Brainstorm and Vote Fallacy
Brainstorming is creative, but voting is popularity—not validation. Teams often confuse participation with proof. Without evaluation, a “winning” idea may not connect to the root cause at all.
Action feels like progress, but without analysis it’s just motion.
Better: Use brainstorming for divergence, then apply the four-step method—Generate → Evaluate → Select → Validate—to converge on evidence-based solutions.
2. Weak Cause–Countermeasure Linkage
Countermeasures must be anchored to specific causes, not to general problems.
When teams fail to tie each countermeasure to an individual verified cause, later evaluation becomes impossible. If multiple actions were taken, no one can tell which was effective or redundant.
A chain of logic is only as strong as its weakest link.
Better: Explicitly list the cause each countermeasure addresses. Use numbering (C1, C2, etc.) and maintain one-to-one correspondence on the A3 or countermeasure table.
3. Failure to Evaluate ADP Strength
Many countermeasures remain fragile because teams never self-assess where they fall on the Administrative–Detection–Prevention scale.
Training, reminders, and documentation dominate because they’re quick and familiar—but they depend on vigilance. Over time, these erode and recurrence returns.
An administrative countermeasure may look strong in a presentation, but it’s weak on the shop floor.
Better: Evaluate each idea’s ADP level. Ask, “Can this work without vigilance?” Favor designs that detect or prevent automatically.
4. Premature Closure and Implementation Bias
In the rush to “get it done,” teams sometimes skip evaluation or pilot testing. They assume their idea will work and jump straight to full-scale implementation.
The result is often a countermeasure that exists in form, not function.
Implementation without validation is faith, not problem solving.
Better: Test before rollout. Run a pilot under real conditions. Use go/no-go criteria to confirm that the countermeasure works as intended.
5. Lack of Follow-Up Ownership
Even the strongest countermeasure can fade without sustained attention. Teams often treat Step 5 as finished once the countermeasure is installed. No one owns the follow-up audits, feedback, or integration into standard work.
Without ownership, even prevention decays.
Better: Assign ownership explicitly. Incorporate follow-up into daily management and layered audits.
Closing Reflection
In practice, most failed countermeasures share the same DNA: creativity without structure, effort without verification. Strong problem solvers know that discipline in design is what turns action into learning. The EFT pattern and ADP evaluation provide that discipline—ensuring each countermeasure directly addresses a cause, functions under real conditions, and endures over time.
The next article will turn to the final and most demanding phase: Coaching Countermeasure Thinking — how leaders can develop this discernment in others and build organizations that naturally move from temporary fixes to true recurrence prevention.
Summary Grid
| Dimension | Good Practice | Common Pitfall |
|---|---|---|
| Logic & Linkage | Countermeasures trace directly to verified causes. | Ideas chosen by vote or intuition; no causal mapping. |
| Strength & Durability | Evaluated on ADP scale; prevention favored. | Administrative fixes dominate; decay over time. |
| Verification & Follow-Up | Piloted, validated, and owned for sustainment. | Implemented without testing; no one ensures permanence. |