Same Problem, Different Causes, Different Actions
How to assess a proposed change against the likely mechanism, the evidence, and the organization's capacity
ALNA Team · Updated September 2026
Similar outcomes do not necessarily have the same cause
When a program lead sees the same problem recurring, such as incomplete follow-ups, it is tempting to reach for a familiar solution: another reminder, another form, another team meeting. Yet the same visible problem can stem from very different mechanisms, each of which calls for a different response. An intervention that fits one explanation may miss another entirely. It may even add to staff workload when workload was not the problem in the first place.
Illustrative scenario: incomplete follow-ups
In a service organization, one in four follow-ups scheduled after an intake meeting is not completed on time. The finding is clear. The explanation is not.
Four plausible mechanisms
1. Capacity: the follow-up coordinator is carrying more cases than can reasonably be completed within the expected timeframe.
2. Ownership: it is unclear who is responsible for confirming that the follow-up took place.
3. Feedback: there is no simple way to spot a follow-up at risk of delay before it becomes significantly overdue.
4. Tools: follow-ups are recorded in multiple places, making it difficult to see in one view who is waiting for what.
Different mechanisms call for different responses
Each mechanism can be addressed in more than one way. The examples below illustrate a range of options, not a predetermined recommendation.
If capacity is the likely mechanism
Reprioritize tasks, redistribute caseloads, or remove steps that do not add value to the follow-up process.
If ownership is unclear
Assign clear accountability to one role, eliminate duplicated responsibility, clarify the intake record, or add a single confirmation point.
If feedback is missing
Use a simple status view or a targeted reminder that appears only when a follow-up is approaching its due date.
If the tools are fragmented
Consolidate documentation into a single view or make a focused technology adjustment. An entirely new system may not be needed.
Options can be compared against:
• fit with the likely mechanism
• strength of evidence
• organizational feasibility
• burden on staff
• time and resources required
• compatibility with existing systems
• risks and unintended effects
• ability to measure implementation and outcome
Review the evidence before deciding
Before choosing an option, compare it with evidence the organization may already hold. Do the coordinators who report the heaviest workloads also have the highest rates of incomplete follow-ups? When asked directly, do frontline teams describe uncertainty about ownership? When evidence consistently points in one direction, the organization has a stronger basis for choosing an action. This reduces uncertainty without pretending to eliminate it. ALNA and the analyst examine the evidence with the organization. They do not decide on its behalf.
Turn the chosen option into a measurable test
Choose one option and define in advance what would count as meaningful change. For example, this might be a reduction in incomplete follow-ups over one month. Then implement it for a defined period and examine three separate questions: Was the action carried out as planned? Did the relevant behavior or process change? Does the original hypothesis about the mechanism still fit the evidence?
This scenario is illustrative. It does not describe a real organization.