PI Planning in SAFe explicitly calls for this. Risks to the plan are called out in front of everyone and each is discussed to see if it can be mitigated (and who will own that mitigation).
If anything happens due to one of those foreseen issues, everybody knew about it in advance and already discussed what, if anything, could have been done to prevent it as well as what action was actually taken.
I love the SAFe / PI Planning approach because it makes sure that everybody is on the same page and totally removes any blame game from deliverables. Far, far fewer surprises.
The tension I've seen at most places where this goes off the rails is due to mis-assigning responsibility.
PMs are responsible for keeping projects on schedule. Engineers are responsible for completing work.
Consequently, PMs are incentivized to compresses schedules, and engineers are pressured to do the same.
The end result is that "the people who do the work plan the work" goes out the window, because risks aren't fundamentally understood (on a technical nuance level) by PMs, so naturally their desire for schedule wins out whenever there's a conflict.
(That said, I've worked at shops that hew closer to how it it should be, and it works great. Current job just happens to be a dumpster fire of bad Agile)
Yea, I can totally see that happening. Hopefully in a room full of people, somebody will have the gumption to not vote low confidence if there’s concern about this happening.
If anything happens due to one of those foreseen issues, everybody knew about it in advance and already discussed what, if anything, could have been done to prevent it as well as what action was actually taken.
I love the SAFe / PI Planning approach because it makes sure that everybody is on the same page and totally removes any blame game from deliverables. Far, far fewer surprises.