1 minute read
If your business truly understood the risk of technical debt, you wouldn’t accept any of it.
There’s a myth that “some level of technical debt is manageable.” But let’s be clear, technical debt is 100% risk. It’s an unhedged fund with no asset securing it, no insurance to mitigate it. The cost isn’t just in future refactoring; it’s in lost time, lost agility, and lost opportunities.
At Microsoft, TFS was delivered on a two-year cycle. By 2012, with 600 engineers, they were shipping just 24 features a year. Technical debt had turned a powerhouse into a bottleneck. It wasn’t until they embraced 3-week Sprints and tackled the underlying debt that they regained agility.
This isn’t just an engineering problem. It’s a business problem. If you think you can hide technical debt in a cost centre forever, think again.
How does your organisation treat technical debt? As a calculated risk or an unrecognised liability?
Subscribe to Martin's signals
Writing since 2001
Signals, usually weekly. One click to leave.
Was this useful?
Enjoyed this? One click, no account.
Smart Classifications
Each classification [Concepts, Categories, & Tags] was assigned using AI-powered semantic analysis and scored across relevance, depth, and alignment. Final decisions? Still human. Always traceable. Hover to see how it applies.
Also published on LinkedIn.