The term "debt" often carries a negative connotation of something owed. However, did an engineering team borrow or owe something? Not really. Instead, they made an optimization based on requirements and available resources. The term "debt" might suggest that the engineering team made a mistake, but in reality, they likely made the best decision given the circumstances. We should shift our thinking to "technical capacity" - how long a system can sustain its performanc... and overcapacity, which occurs when the system exceeds its capacity. Overcapacity can affect scalability, productivity, security, and other factors. But, sometimes, people refer to "tech debt" simply because they are using older technology without actually measuring the issues involved. The term "debt" creates fear that one day the system will fail. Instead, we should understand the system, measure its "capacity," and prepare before it becomes overloaded. Any thoughts?
I do not agree with the following article but to is an interesting opposite opinion about "debt". Technical liabilities: not technical debt https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/technical-liabilities-debt-allan-kelly The big big problem with talking about “debt” is that debt is not necessarily a bad thing; debt is often good, particularly in a business context. This leads to misunderstanding between engineers and non-engineers and can even lead engineers into poor habits. To many people in business - and particularly bankers - debt is good. Debt allows you to grow business and improve earnings. When an engineer says "This will add technical debt" the engineer thinks they are warning about something bad, but to a non-engineer business person, debt is often the preferred form of funding. So buying new capability with (technical) debt sounds like a good deal.
Very interesting! I can see why it is not necessarily bad for business people, but it is negative to me.