Many kinds of problems get classified as technical debt. Most generally it’s problems where:
- In the past, we made a decision to borrow against our future productivity in order to achieve earlier product delivery;
- Because of that past decision, we must now make recurring interest payments in the form of wasted effort.
Engineers hate waste. Waste makes us want to barf. So it’s obvious to us that technical debt must be faced head-on and paid down. We therefore propose to management, “Let’s take technical debt more seriously.” Management usually replies one of two ways:
- No. We have to keep setting aggressive feature deadlines. We don’t have the luxury of looking back.
- Sure! How much of your time do you want to spend on tech debt reduction? How about 20%?
At least #1 is internally consistent.
#2 is scatter-brained. Why should we only spend part of our time doing work that maximizes value, and the rest of our time doing other, less optimal work?
A realistic manager would say, “If you have a proposed improvement that’ll reduce wasted effort, then make a case for the soundness of that proposal as an investment.” If we can save 32 labor-hours over the next 3 years, but it’ll only cost 8 labor-hours to do it, then maybe let’s do it. If it’ll cost 40 labor-hours, then you should just keep on wasting that effort.
Reducing wasted effort may feel like an obvious good, but reducing wasted effort isn’t the goal of a company. Making money is.