[mstade]

I don't think I suggested that all change controls amount to FUD, certainly I didn't mean to anyway. What I did say was that it plays a large part, which is evident in how little many of the decision makers actually know about what a change is, what it means, and what repercussions it might have, so it's easier to err on the side of caution. The answer, of course, is to do more research, but that's more expensive and harder than to just say "no."

My experience is that whatever technical issues may arise really aren't that big of a deal, provided you do the proper research to realize what a change to the system actually means. Significant effort, perhaps, but not particularly difficult from a purely technical standpoint. But it usually means coordinating with different parts of the organization, which can be excruciating, and more often than not has little to do with technological aspects and more with territorial politics and process. That's not necessarily a bad thing, like I said I've seen it stop some really horrid stuff make it into production, but it can also introduce so much friction that you give up before even having started.

I don't rightly know where the balance lies. For a small outfit like monzo it makes sense to be nimble, but for a huge organizations like RBS, UBS, JPM, HSBC etc., there are so many things at play that being conservative isn't necessarily a bad thing. Plenty more degrees in this hell than people generally believe there is, that's for sure.