Need testing support? Check our Quality Assurance services.
See also
- 10 technology trends for 2025 that every CTO needs to know
- 4 key levels of software testing - An expert
- 5G and 6G - How will ultrafast networks change business applications?
In the world of finance, the concept of debt is well known and instinctively understood - we borrow money in order to achieve some goal faster, to realize an investment or to satisfy current needs, but at the same time we are fully aware that in the future we will have to repay not only the borrowed capital, but also the accrued interest, which is the cost of this loan. It turns out that in the dynamic and complex world of software development there is a very similar, though often less tangible and more difficult to grasp, phenomenon that industry professionals refer to as technical debt. While invisible on a company’s traditional financial balance sheet and not appearing in official reports, it can weigh just as heavily, and sometimes more severely, on a company’s future, systematically slowing the pace of development of key products, generating unexpected and often high maintenance and repair costs, and significantly limiting an organization’s ability to innovate and respond flexibly to changing market conditions. So what is this mysterious, often insidious debt we incur in our IT systems, and why is its conscious, strategic management absolutely critical to the long-term success and value of your software? At ARDURA Consulting, we not only help our clients deeply understand the nature and sources of technical debt in their systems, but more importantly, we support them in making informed, data-driven and strategic decisions about both its inevitable creation and rational, prioritized repayment.
Technical debt under control - Philosophy of ARDURA Consulting
“More than 75% of enterprise applications are legacy systems, and modernizing them requires a careful balance of risk, cost, and business continuity.”
— IEEE, Software Modernization: A Strategic Approach | Source
Technical debt, while it may sound abstract, is inherent in the evolution of any complex software system. It is a consequence of decisions that bring short-term benefits, such as faster delivery of functionality, at the expense of long-term quality, maintainability or flexibility of code and architecture. At ARDURA Consulting, we approach this phenomenon not as an inevitable evil to be ignored, but as an aspect to be actively and strategically managed. Our philosophy is based on a deep understanding that not all debt is bad - there is “reasonable” debt, incurred consciously to achieve specific business goals, and “reckless” debt, resulting from negligence and lack of discipline. The key is to be able to identify the different forms of debt, assess its real impact on the business, and then prioritize corrective actions in a way that maximizes value and minimizes risk. We integrate technical debt management into the entire software development lifecycle, from informed design to implementation with attention to quality to regular reviews and refactoring. Our goal is not to eliminate debt altogether, which is often unrealistic and unprofitable, but to keep it at a controlled, acceptable level that enables sustainable product development and ensures its long-term value to the customer. We believe that transparent communication about the state of the system and its business implications is the foundation of partnership.
What is technical debt? Ward Cu
ingham’s metaphor and its profound implications
To fully understand the essence of technical debt, it is worth going back to the roots of the term. The metaphor was first introduced and popularized by Ward Cu
ingham, one of the most influential pioneers of software engineering, co-author of the famous Agile Manifesto and creator of the wiki concept. In an effort to explain the consequences of quality tradeoffs to developers and managers in an accessible way, Cu
ingham compared taking shortcuts in the quality of code developed, choosing architectural solutions or overlooking important engineering practices to taking out a traditional financial loan. In both cases, we’re borrowing something valuable now - in the case of software, it’s primarily time - in order to get some functionality to market faster, meet an urgent business need or fit into a tight schedule. But we do this, consciously or unconsciously, while making a commitment for the future. It is this commitment, this peculiar “loan installment” with “interest”, that the negative consequences of technical debt are in the software world. This “interest” manifests itself as additional, often unplanned effort and time that the development team will have to spend in the future to fix previously introduced deficiencies, to make complicated and risky changes to seemingly simple changes in confusing code, or simply to try to understand the unreadable, poorly documented logic of the system before anything in it can be safely modified. To make matters worse, the longer we delay “repaying” this debt (i.e., performing necessary code and architecture improvement activities, such as refactoring), the larger and more severe the “interest” builds up. The system becomes harder and harder to maintain, slower and slower to develop, and in extreme, though not at all uncommon, cases, the accumulated technical debt can completely paralyze further development of the product, making it virtually impossible to effectively manage and adapt to new needs.
Types of technical debt: From conscious compromises to uncontrolled chaos
In doing so, it is worth making it very clear that technical debt is not always an unambiguously negative phenomenon or something to be avoided at all costs. Just as in the world of finance, where credit can be a tool for development, there are situations in software where the conscious, thoughtful and controlled incurring of a small technical debt can be a legitimate and even rational business decision. We then speak of so-called strategic or prudent technical debt. An example is when a company decides to make some simplifications in the architecture or omit some “ideal” solutions in order to release a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) much faster. The goal of such an action is to verify key business hypotheses as quickly as possible, gather valuable feedback from early users and confirm the value of the product, while fully assuming and planning that the resulting code will be thoroughly “cleaned up” (refactored and improved) in subsequent development iterations. The key here, however, is that such a decision must be fully informed, the risks accepted, and the plan to “pay off” the debt clearly defined and consistently implemented.
The real problem and serious threat to the project occurs when technical debt builds up in an uncontrolled, haphazard **ma
er, often unconscious by the team and management, resulting from systematic negligence and lack of proper engineering discipline**. Such “bad” reckless technical debt is most often the consequence of operating under constant, mismanaged time pressure, insufficient skills or inexperience in the development team, permanent underestimation and skipping of the testing stage (both manual and automated), or widespread disregard for fundamental good software engineering practices, such as regular code reviews, attention to code readability or use of proven design patterns. Such “bad” technical debt can take on a wide variety of often interrelated forms, creating a complex and difficult problem to solve. The most common manifestations, for example, are “spaghetti code,” which is extremely unreadable, unstructured and full of complicated application logic that is difficult to trace. Another common form is the critical lack of automated tests (unit, integration, system), which makes any attempt, even the smallest one, to make a change to the code extremely risky and time-consuming, as there is no mechanism to quickly check whether the modification has broken something in another part of the system. We also often encounter the problem of outdated third-party dependencies, libraries and frameworks that are not updated regularly, and thus become riddled with known security vulnerabilities, compatibility issues or simply no longer supported by their developers. In extreme cases, technical debt can manifest itself as fundamental, deep-seated architectural flaws in the system, such as excessive component coupling (tight coupling), lack of modularity, an ill-conceived data model or ineffective communication mechanisms that drastically limit the scalability, flexibility and ability to further develop the entire system. Other forms can also include insufficient or outdated technical documentation that makes the system difficult to understand, or negligence in the area of Infrastructure as Code and CI/CD pipelines, which slows down the implementation process and increases the risk of errors.
The hidden cost of negligence: The dire consequences of unmanaged technical debt
The consequences of systematically ignoring growing, unchecked technical debt can be extremely serious, multidimensional and very severe for any business that relies on software. First of all, and this is usually the first, most noticeable symptom, technical debt drastically slows down the overall pace of software development and the introduction of new functionality. Introducing any change, even a seemingly simple change or adding a new feature, requires more and more time and effort from developers as they have to wade through a thicket of complex, often undocumented and poorly organized code. The team begins to navigate through the code as if it were a perch, and each modification runs a huge risk of inadvertently causing unexpected errors and regression problems in completely different, seemingly unrelated parts of the system. This, in turn, leads to another negative consequence - there is a significant increase in the number of bugs (errors) hitting the production environment, as code becomes increasingly difficult to fully understand, effectively test and safely modify. These bugs directly affect the user experience, reduce user satisfaction and can lead to a loss of confidence in the product and brand.
As the complexity and number of errors increase, the cost of maintaining an existing system inevitably increases as well. More and more of the development team’s valuable time and resources are spent on constant “firefighting,” i.e., reactively fixing problems as they arise, analyzing complex logs and diagnosing the causes of failures, instead of proactively creating new value for the business and developing innovative features. This leads to another, often underestimated problem - growing frustration, discouragement and demotivation within the development team. Constantly struggling with problematic code, working under pressure to fix critical bugs and not being able to create new and interesting solutions can lead to job burnout and increased turnover of experienced employees, which generates additional high costs associated with recruiting and implementing new people. In extreme, though unfortunately not all that rare, cases, the system becomes so burdened with technical debt accumulated over the years that further meaningful development is virtually impossible or economically unjustifiable. The only desperate salvation then becomes the extremely costly, time-consuming and high-risk decision to completely rewrite the system from scratch (the so-called “Big Rewrite”), which is often a direct consequence of years of neglect of conscious technical debt management. In addition, a high level of technical debt negatively affects the security of the system, making it more vulnerable to attacks, makes it more difficult to adapt to new regulatory and legal requirements, and generally reduces a company’s ability to respond quickly and flexibly to market changes, i.e. its so-called business agility.
Strategic management of technical debt: A methodical approach from ARDURA Consulting
So how do you manage technical debt wisely and effectively to prevent its paralyzing build-up and minimize its negative effects? At ARDURA Consulting, we approach this complex issue in a strategic, systematic and proactive ma
er. We treat technical debt not as an embarrassing problem that should be hidden or swept under the rug at all costs, but as a natural part of the evolution of any software system that needs to be consciously and proactively managed, just as other risks or resources in a company are managed. Our comprehensive approach to managing technical debt includes several key interrelated steps:
The first, fundamental step is always to reliably identify and objectively assess existing technical debt. In order to effectively manage debt, we must first become aware of its existence, understand its nature, accurately locate its main sources in the system, and accurately assess its current scale and potential negative impact on key business and technical aspects. At ARDURA Consulting, we help our clients conduct a comprehensive technical audit of their existing software. As part of such an audit, we use a wide range of tools and techniques, such as advanced static code analysis tools (e.g. SonarQube, linters) that automatically detect so-called “code smells” (code smells), duplication, excessive cyclomatic complexity or potential security vulnerabilities. We also conduct detailed reviews of the system architecture, analyzing its consistency, modularity, scalability and compliance with best practices. We analyze the history of reported bugs and incidents, looking for patterns in it that indicate deeper, systemic problems. Face-to-face interviews and workshops with members of the development team, who are most familiar with the system’s “pain points” from the inside, as well as with key users who experience its inadequacies on a daily basis, are also extremely valuable sources of information. The goal of this stage is not only to create a list of problems, but above all to identify the key areas of the system that are most burdened by technical debt, to understand its nature (e.g., whether it is architectural, code, test, or documentation debt), and to create a kind of “technical debt register” or a dedicated backlog of related tasks.
Having already identified and pre-assessed technical debt, the next extremely important step is to consciously and strategically prioritize its repayment. This is because it is important to remember that not every identified piece of technical debt needs to be paid off immediately and at all costs. Complete debt elimination is often impossible, impractical or simply not profitable from a business perspective. Therefore, together with the client, based on the collected data and analysis, we prioritize areas of the system and specific elements of debt that need to be improved first. In the process of this prioritization, we take into account not only the technical complexity of the problem or the estimated effort needed to fix it, but above all, and this is crucial, its real impact on the business. Thus, we focus on paying off that debt that most impedes the development of key, strategic product functions, generates the most critical bugs affecting users, poses the greatest security risk to data and systems, or most significantly reduces the productivity and morale of the development team. Sometimes, after careful analysis, it may be more cost-effective from a business perspective to deliberately leave certain less critical, less frequently used or stable areas of the system with little technical debt in place, if the estimated cost of paying it off far outweighs the potential expected benefits. The key here is to make informed, data-driven decisions rather than acting haphazardly.
Another key element of our approach is the close integration of technical debt repayment activities with the overall product development roadmap and regular development work cycle. It is extremely important that work such as code refactoring, improving automated test coverage, updating obsolete libraries or architectural improvements are not treated as separate, low-priority “technical” tasks that can be eternally postponed, but are consciously and systematically integrated into the official product development plan (roadmap), alongside the implementation of new business functionality. At ARDURA Consulting, we make sure that in each sprint or development iteration there is adequate time and space to implement activities that improve the technical quality of the code and architecture. To this end, we often apply the principle of “incremental payment of interest and capital”, which involves addressing smaller pieces of debt on a regular basis to prevent excessive accumulation. We also combine refactoring tasks with work on new features, for example, by refactoring a particular module before adding new complex logic to it. Transparently communicating the value of these activities to Product Owner and business stakeholders is key here.
Just as important as systematically paying off the technical debt already in place is implementing effective mechanisms and practices to prevent its excessive, uncontrolled accumulation in the future. At ARDURA Consulting, we achieve this by consistently and rigorously applying best, proven software engineering practices, which we have written about in detail in our previous articles on Software Craftsmanship and Clean Code. This includes, but is not limited to, conducting regular, thorough code reviews, taking care to maintain a high level of code coverage with automated tests (unit, integration, E2E), practicing continuous refactoring as a natural part of a developer’s job, placing a high value on designing a robust, flexible architecture, and creating concise but useful technical documentation. Above all, however, we promote and build a strong culture of quality, shared responsibility and professionalism in our development teams, where each team member feels responsible for the technical excellence of the software being developed.
Business and technology collaboration: The key to sustainable debt management
Conscious and effective management of technical debt is a continuous and dynamic process, which requires not only the commitment of the development team, but, above all, close, partnership cooperation and mutual understanding between business and technology representatives. The business must deeply understand that regular investment in the technical quality of the software, in “paying off” the technical debt, is not an u
ecessary cost or a fad of the developers, but an absolute prerequisite for ensuring the long-term, sustainable development of the product, its stability, security and adaptability to future needs. The technology team, in turn, must learn to communicate the risks and consequences of mounting technical debt in a way that is clear, understandable and compelling to non-technical people, using the language of business benefits and potential losses. He or she must also be able to propose pragmatic, realistic and well-founded strategies for the gradual reduction of this debt that take into account current business priorities. At ARDURA Consulting, we often act as a translator and mediator between these two worlds, helping to build a common understanding and develop optimal solutions. A key role in this process is also played by the Product Owner, who, in collaboration with the team, must find the right balance between delivering new functionality and investing in the technical health of the system.
In summary, technical debt is an inevitable, natural part of the evolution of any software system, even the best-managed one, which lives and evolves over time. The key to success is not its complete, utopian elimination (which is often not only impossible, but also unprofitable from a business perspective), but its conscious, strategic and continuous management. At ARDURA Consulting, we help our clients deeply understand the nature and sources of technical debt in their systems, accurately assess its real impact on their business, make informed, data-driven decisions about its prioritization and methodical repayment, and, just as importantly, implement sound engineering and cultural practices that effectively prevent its uncontrolled, damaging build-up in the future. This partnership approach ensures that the software created and developed by ARDURA Consulting is not only functional and innovative, but also healthy, flexible, easy to maintain and ready to provide years of effective, reliable service to your company, providing a solid foundation for its digital transformation and future success.
Are you concerned that technical debt is slowing down your software development? Do you want to understand how to manage it strategically and make informed decisions about investing in technical quality? Contact the experts at ARDURA Consulting. We will audit your system, help you assess the level of technical debt and propose pragmatic strategies to manage and reduce it.