Practical relevance
Types of technical debt:
• Code debt (untidy, redundant, or complex code).
• Architectural debt (inappropriate or outdated structures, tight coupling).
• Test debt (missing or unstable tests).
• Build/deploy debt (manual or fragile pipelines).
• Documentation debt (missing or outdated documentation).
Economic model:
• Principal (main debt): Effort required to implement the better solution now.
• Interest: recurring additional costs, e.g., longer development time, more defects.
• Interest rate: increases in areas of code that are changed frequently ("hotspots").
Intent & quality of the decision (Fowler quadrant):
• Intentional vs. unintentional × prudent vs. reckless → four types.
• "Intentional-prudent" can be useful (conscious market launch despite compromise).
• "Unintentional-reckless" almost always leads to problem interest rates.
Typical misunderstandings
❌ "Technical debt = bugs" – Bugs are defects; debt affects the maintainability and evolvability of the system.
❌ "Tools provide the whole truth" – SonarQube/SQALE primarily estimate maintainability debt (code smells), but often leave architecture, test, or build debt invisible.
❌ "Rewriting everything solves it" – Big bang rewrites often only shift debt; incremental approaches (e.g., strangler pattern) are less risky.
Relevance for organizations
Business impact:
• A large-scale study of 39 commercial codebases showed that low-quality code contained up to 15 times more defects and that issues took an average of 124% longer to resolve.
• The authors emphasize: correlation, not causation – results apply to this sample, not universally.
• Other case studies report mixed or even no effects on throughput times, depending on the context and measurement method.
Conclusion: Technical quality is business-relevant, but the effect is context-dependent – organizations must carry out their own measurements.
Practical example
A financial services provider identified a hotspot service (frequently changed, high complexity value). The result: long throughput times, errors in releases. Hotspot analysis and investigation of temporal coupling revealed dependencies. The team extracted a smaller component, added tests and CI checks. The result: shorter cycle times and a lower error rate in the affected value stream.
Strategies: Avoid, manage, reduce
A. Make visible & evaluate
• Debt register (items with principal/interest), heat maps for hotspots, architecture reviews.
• Use tools (SonarQube, SQALE) – but only as a partial indicator.
B. Prioritize according to economics
• Prioritize debt according to cost of delay (CoD)/WSJF and hotspot score.
• Assign repayment plans to conscious debts.
C. Repayment in flow
• Continuous refactoring during ongoing operations.
• Explicitly plan architecture enablers.
• Use strangler patterns for legacy systems.
D. Quality routines & definition of done
• TDD, automated testing, CI/CD, code reviews.
• Explicitly extend definition of done with refactoring/testing.
E. Measure impact
• Combination of maintainability metrics (e.g., Sonar) and flow metrics (lead/cycle time, defect density, change failure rate).
• Important: Ratings are indicators, not absolute judgments.
How good coaches work
1. Create a baseline: debt register + hotspot map.
2. Prioritize economically: WSJF × hotspot score → top items.
3. Repayment in cadence: fixed refactoring slots or enablers in each PI/sprint.
4. Manage architecture debt separately: cuts, dependencies, observability.
5. Measure impact: Focus on outcomes (e.g., shorter cycle time, fewer defects), not just "hours invested."
CALADE perspective
We see technical debt as a strategic risk in the portfolio. Our approach:
• Create visibility (debt register, hotspot analysis).
• Prioritize economically (CoD, WSJF).
• Secure binding capacity (refactoring/enabler slots).
• Repay and measure incrementally.
Where organizational policies increase debt (e.g., rigid approvals, lack of platform capabilities), we combine our work with Organizational Debt, Living Strategy® (prioritization, strategy sprints), and Living Transformation® (3-month cadence, Capa/Prio events). This results in holistic debt reduction that combines technology and organization.
Related terms & sources
• Ward Cunningham: Debt Metaphor (1992).
• Martin Fowler: TD Quadrant.
• SEI/CMU – Managing Technical Debt (Kruchten, Nord, Ozkaya).
• Systematic Reviews (Li, Avgeriou et al., 2015).
• Hotspots & Temporal Coupling (Tornhill/CodeScene).
• SonarQube/SQALE – Maintainability Debt Ratio.
• Empirical business impact studies – correlation between quality, defects & cycle time; consider context.
← back to list