That sounds a bit like the old "if architects designed houses like software engineers design programs..." trope. There is some truth to that, even if the fields of software design, architecture and aerospace engineering are vastly different. An important difference is that it is extremely unsafe to make assumptions in software engineering, yet we have no choice but to make them all the time. Our current world of software development is a minefield of bedrock turning to mud overnight, cable ducts that melt if they come in contact with a certain titanium alloy, doors that randomly explode if you put the doorknob on wrong, and turbine blades that come off if you happen to fly over the date line twice in one hour, to use a few crappy analogies. Some of this can be fixed, but until it is, it makes software development a complex affair, where perfection is attainably only at great cost; vastly more than consumers or producers are willing to pay.
You do need a good process, but as I wrote before, it's not a substitute for good people. What I often see in IT is incredibly low standards. Sloppy work, sloppy decisions, sloppy designs, sloppy planning. And that has something to do with the quality of the people that we hire. Not just the developers, but the architects, testers and managers as well. Especially the managers. I can't imagine that airplane mechanics finding a leftover bolt after putting an engine back together will just shrug and say: "That was probably already here when we started" (I sure hope they don't...). In IT, such decisions are made on a daily basis just to meet the deadline for pushing out a product that sort of runs. And if you're going to change that culture, you need better people; just enforcing it through process is not going to cut it.
Coming back to Chaotic Architecture: you need good people for that to work as well. If you just throw it out there without making some other changes, you're inviting disaster.