[politician]

Arguably, this is the intended outcome. The form exists so that the change management team can supply evidence of process compliance to its auditors, but when the scope of the change management processes is driven arbitrarily it can be ridiculously hard to quantify risk of change which slows decision making.

However, if a rogue engineer might decide to flout the policy and deploy stuff whenever they wanted, then the business stands to profit from the gains more quickly and with less hassle. If the risk doesn't pay off, the responsible engineer can be fired for cause, itself demonstrating that the business is in control.

You may not want to take on uncompensated personal risk by operating outside these lazily-defined change management policies.

[arethuza]

It was about 10 years ago and a former employer that I left 5 years ago.