Verifying and Sustaining Improvement

“We fixed the problem, so we’re done.” That’s the first thing I hear from teams after a successful RCA. And it’s usually the moment the real work begins.

Corrective actions don’t solve problems by magic. They only work when they are verified, measured, and sustained. Without a follow-up process, even the most perfectly designed fix can fade into habit, or worse, be bypassed when pressure mounts.

My experience shows that 70% of recovery efforts fail not because the root cause was misidentified, but because the solution wasn’t validated in the field. What looked like a success in theory becomes a ghost in the system—no evidence of change, no data to prove it worked.

This chapter guides you through the critical phase that every RCA must include: post-implementation verification and long-term sustainability. You’ll learn how to set measurable benchmarks, design effective audits, and embed feedback loops that turn temporary fixes into permanent improvements. By the end, you’ll have a proven process to ensure that corrective actions don’t just exist on paper—but deliver real, lasting results.

Why Verification Is Not Optional

Too often, teams skip verification because they’re eager to move on. But skipping verification is like diagnosing a patient and prescribing medication without checking symptoms over time.

Verification ensures that the action you took actually resolved the root cause—and not just a symptom. It prevents rework, avoids repeat failures, and builds trust in the RCA process across the organization.

Let me be clear: if you don’t verify, you’re not improving. You’re just re-running the same mistake with a different label.

Key Goals of the RCA Follow-Up Process

• Confirm whether the corrective action reduced or eliminated the effect.
• Validate that the fix is sustainable under real-world conditions.
• Identify any unintended consequences or new risks introduced by the change.
• Establish a feedback loop that supports continuous learning.

These aren’t just bureaucratic hoops. They’re the difference between a reactive fix and a systemic improvement.

Setting Measurable Verification Criteria

Verification starts with clarity. You can’t measure improvement if you can’t define it.

When planning your corrective action, always define success metrics before implementation. Ask: “What does it mean for this fix to work?”

Here’s a simple framework to guide your verification planning:

Verification Element	Example for IT Outage	Example for Delivery Delay
Primary Metric	System uptime > 99.9% over 30 days	On-time delivery rate > 98%
Timeframe	30 days post-implementation	60 days post-change
Data Source	Monitoring logs, uptime dashboards	Delivery tracking system
Threshold for Success	0 critical outages	No more than 2 late deliveries

These criteria must be shared with the team, documented in the action plan, and reviewed during follow-up.

When Measurable Metrics Are Not Available

Some improvements—like improved team morale or better communication—aren’t easily quantified.

For these cases, use qualitative validation through structured observation and stakeholder feedback. Conduct short surveys or walk-around audits. Ask: “Have operations become smoother?” “Do team members report less stress when handling this process?”

Even soft metrics can be tracked over time. For example, track the number of complaints or escalations before and after the fix.

Designing Your RCA Follow-Up Process

Verification isn’t a one-time event. It’s a structured cycle. Here’s how to build it into your workflow.

Step-by-Step RCA Follow-Up Process

1. Assign Ownership: Designate a person responsible for monitoring the fix and reporting results.
2. Set Reporting Cadence: Agree on intervals—weekly for the first 30 days, then monthly for 90 days.
3. Collect Data: Pull actual performance data from the source system or process logs.
4. Compare to Baseline: Use the original problem data as a benchmark to measure change.
5. Review and Report: Summarize findings in a short report or dashboard. Include visuals like trend charts.
6. Decide: If successful, close the action. If not, re-evaluate the root cause or action.

Use a simple dashboard template to track progress. Here’s a minimal version:

Action	Owner	Target	Current Status	Verification Date
Implement real-time log monitoring	Alice	99.9% uptime	99.85%	2025-04-15
Standardize delivery checklists	Carlos	98% on-time	97.4%	2025-04-10

After 90 days, if performance is stable and within target, you can close the action with confidence.

How to Sustain Improvements Over Time

Improving a process is not the same as ensuring the improvement stays. Change is fragile. Without reinforcement, habits revert.

Here’s how to create lasting change:

Key Strategies to Sustain Improvements

• Integrate into Standard Work: Add the fix to SOPs, checklists, or process diagrams. If it’s not in the workflow, it’s not sustained.
• Train and Re-train: Ensure all team members understand the new process. Use short training sessions and knowledge-sharing meetings.
• Monitor via Audits: Conduct random checks to verify compliance. Audit results should be shared monthly.
• Link to Performance Reviews: Include adherence to improved processes in team KPIs or individual evaluations.
• Recognize Successes: Publicly acknowledge teams or individuals who maintain the change. Positive reinforcement builds momentum.

Sustaining improvements isn’t about constant oversight—it’s about embedding the change so deeply that it becomes the new normal.

The Role of Leadership in Sustaining Change

Frontline teams often do their part. But leadership must reinforce it. I’ve seen countless improvements fail not due to poor execution, but because leaders didn’t reinforce the new behavior.

When I consult with organizations, I always recommend that leaders:

• Walk the new process at least once a month.
• Ask teams, “How has this change helped you?”
• Use the improved process as a benchmark in team meetings.

This signals that the change is not temporary. It’s expected.

When Verification Fails: Troubleshooting Common Pitfalls

Even with a solid plan, verification can fail. Here’s how to diagnose and recover.

Common Reasons Verification Fails

• Metrics are poorly defined: “Improved efficiency” is not measurable. Define what “better” means in concrete terms.
• Data is missing or inconsistent: Ensure the system used to measure performance is the same one used during the incident.
• Team fatigue or distraction: After a crisis, teams move on. Re-engage them with brief check-ins.
• Root cause was misidentified: If verification shows no improvement, revisit the original RCA. You may have targeted a symptom, not the true cause.

When verification fails, don’t restart the whole RCA. Re-evaluate the action plan and data sources first. Often, the fix was correct—but the monitoring wasn’t.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long should verification last?

At minimum, 90 days. This gives enough time to see trends, seasonal variations, or backlog effects. For critical systems, extend to 6 months.

Can I verify an improvement without direct data?

Yes, but with caution. Use observations, feedback, and secondary data. For example, if a process change reduces handoffs, track the number of email exchanges or meeting times. But avoid relying solely on opinion.

What if the fix only works temporarily?

This is a red flag. Revisit the RCA. The root cause may have been misdiagnosed, or the solution was a temporary patch. Look for deeper systemic issues—especially in process, training, or design.

How often should I audit the sustained improvement?

Monthly for the first 3 months, then quarterly. After one year, audit annually—unless changes are frequent. Audits should be brief, focused, and documented.

Who should lead the RCA follow-up process?

Assign ownership to the person who implemented the action. If that’s not possible, assign a neutral party—like a quality manager or process lead. Avoid having the same person manage both the fix and the audit.

What if leadership doesn’t care about verification?

Push back with data. Show them the cost of recurring issues versus the investment in verification. Use past failures as examples. Frame verification not as bureaucracy, but as risk management. And if they still don’t act, document the gap. You’re protecting the organization, not just the process.