Actually any organisation worthy of the label "engineer" should do a thorough, no-blame, and collaborative post-mortem of such events so they don't happen again, and that would include warnings given.
Feature on time + risk, feature late + no risk (and anything in between), it's in the end an engineering and business decision and either choice might be the right one depending on the circumstances.
Absolutely, this is a often ignored or missed aspect of building systems. Quantifying risk in a fashion that all parties have the same understanding of said risk can be very difficult. There has to be a common language and agreed upon thresholds of risk. After developing shared understanding of risk, it's much easier to highlight and change the behaviors of individuals and the teams.
Actually any organisation worthy of the label "engineer" should do a thorough, no-blame, and collaborative post-mortem of such events so they don't happen again, and that would include warnings given.
Feature on time + risk, feature late + no risk (and anything in between), it's in the end an engineering and business decision and either choice might be the right one depending on the circumstances.
Absolutely, this is a often ignored or missed aspect of building systems. Quantifying risk in a fashion that all parties have the same understanding of said risk can be very difficult. There has to be a common language and agreed upon thresholds of risk. After developing shared understanding of risk, it's much easier to highlight and change the behaviors of individuals and the teams.
Sounds also like a good way for the two tribes (eng & mgmt) to formulate a way to communicate tradeoffs better.