Anything But Tech Debt

Tech debt, a contentious topic among engineering teams, often leads to misunderstandings due to its broad and vague nature, which can obscure the value of engineering work to business stakeholders. Engineers frequently feel they lack time to address tech debt, while product partners and business leaders question its importance, creating a conflict that often stems from a lack of clear communication. To mitigate this, the author suggests breaking down tech debt into more specific categories, allowing engineers to more effectively communicate the business value of their work. Tool chain investments, reliability, and rework are examples of non-feature work that can be challenging to prioritize but are essential for long-term success. Using frameworks like MEDDIC for tool adoption and setting Service Level Objectives (SLOs) for reliability can help align technical teams with business goals. While the term "tech debt" may not always be helpful in advocating for work, the concept of debt itself remains valuable in making decisions about when to invest in engineering efforts. By using more precise labels that highlight the business benefits, stakeholders can better understand the necessity of such investments, leading to more productive discussions and alignment on priorities.