Type One: This is messy. Accountabilities are not clear. The process sucks. Too many people involved. The issue to address is complex. There are at least 5 people who should have done X,Y,Z but did not. We need to fix the process, define accountabilities and explain why those 5 did not do X,Y,Z. Then, we will be in a position to address the issue.
Type Two: This is messy. Accountabilities are not clear. The process sucks. Too many people involved. The issue to address is complex. There are at least 5 people who should have done X,Y,Z but did not. We solve the issue, we make it work first, now. No matter what. Then (after) we look back, we fix the process, define accountabilities and explain everything that needed to be explained. Then we will have learnt, and we will have neat things in place.
Which one you want? 9 out of 10 of cases, people go for Type One. It is completely rational. Which is exactly the problem. The rationality implies that you have the luxury of stopping time, and then, once all has been sorted out, you address the problem. Not real life.
Remarkable organizations work on Type Two mode. Many people may say they do too. But in my experience this is not the case. We do really stop time and get paralyze until all possible accountabilitis have been articulated properly. Then we act. Fooled by the rationality of the argument.