1.I agree with your analysis of the Rosa County Case and the need of a root cause analysis.

I would suppose that a root cause analysis would be the first step in determining what the change order would be needed.

The first goal of root cause analysis is to discover the root cause of a problem or event. The second goal is to fully understand how to fix, compensate, or learn from any underlying issues within the root cause. The third goal is to apply what we learn from this analysis to systematically prevent future issues or to repeat successes. Analysis is only as good as what we do with that analysis, so the third goal of RCA is important. (Tableau.com., n.d.)

 Reference:

Tableau.com. (n.d.),  Root Cause Analysis: Definition, Examples & Methods, https://www.tableau.com/learn/articles/root-cause-analysis

2.  I’m with you regarding the need for both a CCB and an actual change control process.  

Ideally, we want the staff who will use (or use) the Rosa County system daily or contribute to the current project at a User level to recommend and suggest changes as things move along.  The change control process is a more professional version of the old “suggestion box”, but it’s helpful when done right.  Those suggested changes need to be reviewed at a higher level, for potential impacts to budget, schedule, scope, etc.  Neither of these elements works without the other, really.  If there is no change management process or plan in place, the staff have no way to formally request changes.  And, if there is no governing authority to the change process to determine who will make which changes, the change request dies at the request stage.

So, following on from your post, we can view the change management process as feeding into the CCB, with the CCB being the end-point of the change management process.  It’s a synergistic relationship.