I agree with you, but have the hunch that many PMs don't. >it's usually easier to prevent a problem than capture, triage, debug, fix, and re-deploy. It really

I agree with you, but have the hunch that many PMs don't. >it's usually easier to prevent a problem than capture, triage, debug, fix, and re-deploy. It really depends on the risk of the fault. To a PM under schedule pressure, the higher risk may be to break schedule in order to redesign to mitigate the fault. As you said, many failures are low probability, so PMs are used to rolling the dice and getting away with it. Often they've moved on before those failures rear their ugly heads. An organization really needs the processes that establish guardrails against these biases. Establishing requirements to use the tools to define the fault model can go a long way, although I've seen people get away with turning a blind eye to those requirements as well. You also need to mate it with strong accountability.