“𝐓𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐭” 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭.

Leaning into the perpetual dilema of Tech Debt

Most tech debt isn’t a technical problem — it’s a decision-making problem.

We chose to optimise for speed. We chose to defer. And we often choose not to address it until it becomes a constraint.


𝐈𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲:

• They budget for it deliberately — ~15–20% of sprint capacity isn’t “nice to have”, it’s a guardrail

• They quantify it in business terms — cost of delay, lost optionality, slower delivery

• They address root causes — legacy dependencies, capacity constraints, or weak estimation discipline


𝐈𝐟 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐭 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐥𝐮𝐜𝐤. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐥.

Because eventually, every organisation reaches the same point:

You either invest in paying down tech debt deliberately — or you pay for it later through slower delivery, weaker resilience, and lost opportunities.

At that stage, tech debt is no longer a code problem.

It’s a leadership choice.

And like any unmanaged debt, the interest compounds over time.


𝑊ℎ𝑎𝑡’𝑠 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 — ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑡𝑒𝑐ℎ 𝑑𝑒𝑏𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑛 𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑒, 𝑜𝑟 𝑎 𝑏𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑛𝑒?



#ProductAtScale#ProductLeadership#ProductStrategy#TechDebt#DigitalTransformation#B2C#Platform

𝑃ℎ𝑜𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑦 𝐽𝑢𝑙𝑖𝑒 𝑅𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑑 on Unsplash