A change order management system should be fit for purpose. If the project is highly creative, then ideas must be encouraged. A simple note, with a description of the idea, likely benefits and possible costs, may be enough. However, in a safety sensitive and operational context, the change order process may be subject to more checks and scruples, and can be made especially thorough. 

The operations for a satellite launch are extremely sensitive to change.  The infrastructure of a rocket launch site is a system that has to be error resistant and error tolerant, robust and secure. Reliability is a watchword and if any change might possibly prevent something from working, then it should be rejected.

One change proposal seemed like a no-brainer. In order to speed up the work stations used for the launch campaigns, the suggestion was to slow down some other work stations that were used for managing the car pool. The reason given for rejecting the change was astonishing: "Users would not be able to comprehend why two identical work stations would not have the same performance." What is this?  Libert, equality and fraternity for work stations? 

But, they were right to reject the change request. It was rejected for the right reasons. The benefits were not explicit, there had been no lobbying, promotion or marketing of the change, and the risks had not been quantified. Furthermore, any change that you could introduce has an opportunity cost.  The change should offer at least the return on investment that you could obtain by investing the effort elsewhere. So given the competition to spend money, any counter-benefits, including change management overhead, can harm your business case.