Why Early Intervention Is Crucial for Engineering Teams

Technical debt is widely recognized among software engineers and architects. It refers to the accumulation of suboptimal code, design decisions, and processes made to speed up delivery, often compromising long-term quality and sustainability. Additionally, technical debt encompasses necessary updates for new libraries, technology improvements, vulnerabilities, and known bugs that have yet to be resolved.

While technical debt can seem manageable initially, failing to address it early can lead to problems that become increasingly costly and challenging to resolve. In this post, I examine the growing costs of not addressing technical debt early and often.

What Is Technical Debt

Despite its widespread use, there seems to be no universal consensus on the definition of technical debt. Those in technical fields generally understand the term, yet interpretations can vary significantly. For my posts, my implied definition aligns closely with Martin Fowler’s conceptualization of technical debt, which he visualizes in quadrants: Deliberate & Reckless, Deliberate & Prudent, Inadvertent & Reckless, and Inadvertent & Prudent.

However, I propose a fifth type of technical debt that cannot be overlooked: Imposed Technical Debt. This type of debt results from the evolutionary nature of technology and customer demands. As advancements occur in compilers, languages, runtimes, frameworks, libraries, and cloud services, there are opportunities for our code and designs to benefit from these developments. This imposed technical debt arises not from poor initial decisions but from the need to stay current and competitive. Similarly, shifting customer needs and demands, or strategic choices to target new customer bases, can render previously debt-free designs and code inadequate. This imposed debt is an inevitable part of the dynamic landscape in which we operate, necessitating continuous adaptation and updates to maintain the quality and sustainability of our software systems.

There is also one important sub-category to call out: ‘Non-Impactful (or minimally impactful) Deliberate & Prudent’. This is a ‘Deliberate & Prudent’ debt never intended to be addressed later. One example may be sub-optimal code that is rarely executed, is still easy to maintain, and has no perceivably negative impact on the user experience. The decision is intentionally made not to spend the time optimizing code that would not have a valuable return on investment.

While the debate of what is and is not technical debt rolls on, for my posts, the term ‘technical debt’ will encompass all of these categories (other than ‘Non-Impactful Deliberate & Prudent’ in most cases) and can be summarized by saying that technical debt is any code, designs, or processes that reduce the otherwise achievable and desired quality levels and/or create a technology-based burden on the product, customer, company, or team.

This Debt Must Be Paid

Technical debt is aptly named because it conceptually mirrors financial debt. When a company takes out a monetary loan to grow its business, it does so with the understanding that the borrowed money must be repaid with interest. The interest is a recurring cost added to the principal amount, representing the funds’ borrowing price. If the company fails to repay the principal and the interest regularly, it sinks deeper into debt. The accumulation of unpaid interest can significantly hinder the company’s financial stability, leading to increased stress and the challenge of getting further behind.

Similarly, technical teams often accrue debt (technical debt) when they make deliberate choices to expedite delivery to get a feature out or fix a bug quickly. Immediate project demands often drive technical debt, prioritizing short-term delivery over long-term quality and sustainability. The interest accrued on technical debt manifests as the extra effort needed to work around poorly written or structured code. This can include longer development times, difficulty maintaining the codebase, and the increased complexity of implementing new features.

Just as with financial debt, if a technical team isn’t regularly paying down both the interest and some of the principal (improving the code and refactoring), they will either remain in a constant state of debt or, more likely, see their technical debt continue to grow. The longer these issues go unaddressed, the more pronounced their impact on the system’s integrity and the team’s ability to deliver a robust and reliable product.

How Interest Is Charged

When a codebase is riddled with technical debt, it faces significant challenges:

• Complicates the implementation of meaningful unit tests
• Difficult to maintain or extend
• Exhibiting poor performance or scalability characteristics
• Susceptible to the introduction of new bugs
• Development time for new features takes longer than with a clean, high-quality codebase
• Attempts to work around existing debt often introduce new debt items.

Without sufficient automated tests, developers must spend extra time manually verifying that their changes have not introduced errors or take the time to implement the missing tests. Difficult-to-maintain code increases the complexity of integrating new features, requiring more effort to understand and safely modify the existing code. Poor performance and scalability issues with the existing code mean that new features must be carefully designed to avoid exacerbating existing issues, which takes additional time and resources.

This extra time and effort represent the “interest” on the technical debt, a cost that drains resources and slows progress. The same concept applies to bug fixes related to or directly involving the indebted code.

The longer the technical debt remains unaddressed, the more pronounced its impact on new development. This results in a cycle of inefficiency and frustration that ultimately affects the team’s productivity and the company’s bottom line.

A Charging Oversight

The financial debt metaphor is typically applied to technical debt and how interest is charged to the debt as a cost impacting the time required for new work. While this effectively conveys the ideas, this representation may allow the expense to be viewed as a one-time extra cost, which can be absorbed and justified without significant concern.

The actual cost of technical debt extends beyond the simplified example of the extra time required to address immediate issues. Considering this extra time as a one-time expense resembles an immediately payable fee rather than interest on a financial loan. The actual “interest” on technical debt is not just an isolated expense but a recurring cost that persists as long as the debt remains unpaid.

This ongoing expense appears in various forms, such as increased development and testing times and the need to design new features carefully to avoid exacerbating existing security, performance, and scalability issues. The compounding effect of these recurring costs illustrates why technical debt must be managed proactively; otherwise, it contributes to a cycle of inefficiency that impacts productivity and product quality.

Additionally, other less-tractable expenses act as interest accruals on the technical debt, which are very real, impactful, and have a domino effect.

The Domino Effect of Technical Debt

Assume a software system has some known performance issues in various code areas. None of these issues appear highly impactful when considered and reviewed in isolation. However, taken as a whole, the aggregate performance impact could cost the company a good amount of extra money in terms of the resources needed to house and execute the services. The longer the issues remain unresolved, the more pronounced their impact on the ability to invest financial resources elsewhere.

Technical debt also impacts users. When the product becomes more complex, has bugs, or performs inefficiently, users must develop workarounds, which leads to a decline in user experience. This situation also increases the workload on support staff, who need to handle more support issues that take longer to resolve, further contributing to customer dissatisfaction.

Engineering teams are also impacted as their productivity drops due to working around unresolved issues, missing tests, code not built using well-established best practices, etc. This inevitably leads to lower job satisfaction, burnout, and decreased creativity and innovation.

These issues gradually burden all stakeholders, including users, the company, and the engineering teams. This is an example of the circle of influence where decisions to use quality shortcuts can negatively impact all stakeholders, perpetuating through this circle of influence until resolved.

Technical debt must be considered as regularly accumulating interest, not merely the extra time required to fix a bug or deliver a new feature. Its impact increases with each release, sprint, and iteration, progressively affecting all stakeholders.

The Mounting Burden of Unresolved Technical Debt

Treating technical debt as a mandatory issue to fix early can significantly mitigate mounting burdens and long-term costs. The longer it takes to address and reduce technical debt, the more pervasive it becomes. This delay creates a vicious cycle where unresolved issues compound and contribute to a growing sense of desperation.

Imagine technical debt as a form of quicksand. The longer you stand still, the deeper you sink, making escaping increasingly difficult. An overwhelming sense of urgency develops as teams wrestle with mounting technical debt. In the desperation to catch up, shortcuts are taken, such as hastily written code, insufficient testing, and overlooked best practices. Ironically, these rushed efforts often exacerbate the problem, leading to even more technical debt.

This cycle of accumulating debt creates a quagmire of inefficiency and frustration. Development teams find themselves trapped, struggling to maintain current functionality while attempting to address the ever-growing list of issues. This constant battle results in diminished productivity, lower morale, and a decline in the overall quality of the product. The more they struggle to escape, the deeper they sink into the mire of unresolved technical debt.

To avoid this quicksand-like scenario, it is crucial to address technical debt proactively. By prioritizing the resolution of technical debt, teams can prevent the downward spiral of rushed fixes and growing inefficiencies. Early intervention, through the implementation of automated tests, refactoring, and adherence to best practices, can make a significant difference in maintaining a healthy, manageable codebase.

By tackling technical debt proactively and systematically, teams can avoid the quicksand sensation of desperation and ensure the long-term stability, quality, and success of their software products.

Strategies for Managing Technical Debt

Early intervention is crucial. To mitigate technical debt, consider the following strategies:

• Implement meaningful automated tests; focus on testing behavior over code paths
• Improve code maintainability; keep cognitive and cyclomatic complexities low
• Prioritize non-functional requirements
• Conduct regular code reviews and refactoring sessions & be sure code reviews have value and are not rubber-stamps
• Keep up to date with the latest platforms, frameworks, libraries, and development tool capabilities
• Record & track all technical debt and be diligent about consistently paying down the debt

Understanding the long-term implications of technical debt and prioritizing its resolution can lead to a healthier codebase, a more satisfied user base, and a more efficient development process. Just as paying off financial debts leads to economic stability and peace of mind, addressing technical debt early ensures the stability and quality of your software product.

Call To Action

Engineering teams must take immediate, decisive action to address technical debt. It begins with transparent communication about the presence and implications of technical debt within the team and across the organization. Establishing a culture that values and rewards the identification and resolution of technical debt is essential. Allocate dedicated time for debt management during each sprint or development cycle, ensuring it remains a priority alongside feature development and bug fixing.

Create a comprehensive tracking system for technical debt, integrating it with your existing project management tools. This system should document each debt item’s nature, location, and severity and include a plan for its resolution. Regularly review and update this documentation to reflect progress and emerging priorities.

Invest in training and resources that empower your team to effectively recognize and address technical debt. To prevent the accumulation of new debt, encourage adopting best practices, such as code reviews, automated testing, Clean Code, and SOLID and DRY principles. Time-box and establish a timeframe for removing deprecated code. Foster collaboration between developers, QA engineers, and product managers to ensure that technical debt is considered in all aspects of the development process.

By taking these steps, engineering teams can transform technical debt from an overlooked burden into a manageable, transparent aspect of their development cycle. This proactive approach will lead to more sustainable, higher-quality software and a more resilient, innovative team.

Summary

Technical debt is inevitable in software development, but how you manage it determines its impact. By acknowledging its presence and taking proactive steps to track and resolve it, engineering teams can ensure their products remain robust, scalable, and user-friendly. Remember, the key to overcoming technical debt is consistent and early intervention—don’t let it pull you under.