This is such a critical parallel. The real risk in OT isn’t just technical it’s cultural: the assumption that “it won’t interfere” often overrides the structure designed to prevent catastrophe. Formal change management isn’t bureaucracy; it’s the bulwark against the iceberg we all see but hope to avoid. Process isn’t the enemy of speed it’s the guardian of resilience.
Thanks for putting this so clearly: "the bulwark against the iceberg we all see but hope to avoid" really nails it.
You're absolutely right: the biggest gap in many OT environments isn't a lack of knowledge, but the cultural assumption that "it will be fine", especially when things have "always worked this way". That mindset is what makes small changes snowball into major failures.
And yes, process gets a bad rap. But when it's lean and grounded in the real world, it's not red tape, it's a safety net that lets teams move faster and with more confidence, not less.
This is such a critical parallel. The real risk in OT isn’t just technical it’s cultural: the assumption that “it won’t interfere” often overrides the structure designed to prevent catastrophe. Formal change management isn’t bureaucracy; it’s the bulwark against the iceberg we all see but hope to avoid. Process isn’t the enemy of speed it’s the guardian of resilience.
Thanks for putting this so clearly: "the bulwark against the iceberg we all see but hope to avoid" really nails it.
You're absolutely right: the biggest gap in many OT environments isn't a lack of knowledge, but the cultural assumption that "it will be fine", especially when things have "always worked this way". That mindset is what makes small changes snowball into major failures.
And yes, process gets a bad rap. But when it's lean and grounded in the real world, it's not red tape, it's a safety net that lets teams move faster and with more confidence, not less.
Appreciate you highlighting this.