Paying Down Technical Debt When Ahead Of Schedule

What is Technical Debt?

Technical debt refers to the implied cost of additional work caused by choosing an easy software solution now instead of using a better approach that would take longer. It is a software development concept that reflects the extra development work that arises when code that is easy to implement in the short run is used instead of applying the best overall solution. Technical debt accumulates over time and must eventually be paid down through software improvements and refactoring. If left unchecked, technical debt will make a codebase rigid, fragile, and increasingly difficult to modify and enhance.

Some common examples of practices that incur technical debt include:

  • Copying and pasting code instead of creating reusable functions
  • Using hard-coded values instead of configurable parameters
  • Implementing quick fixes instead of robust, systemic solutions
  • Postponing documentation and tests
  • Delaying refactoring of clumsy or complex code
  • Retaining legacy code instead of modernizing

Over time, teams accrue layers of technical debt through suboptimal coding practices, evolving requirements, and external pressures to deliver features quickly. This accumulated debt will eventually slow velocity to a crawl unless purposefully paid down.

Recognizing You’re Ahead of Schedule

When a development team is consistently able to deliver features faster than originally estimated, it’s a clear sign they are ahead of schedule. There are several metrics that can quantify whether a software project is accelerating and how significantly it is outpacing predicted timeline targets:

  • Plan-do-check ratios: Comparing the amount of planned work for a given iteration against what was actually completed shows how much actual output is exceeding predictions.
  • Defect rates: Tracking open bugs and quality assurance issues spotlights the team’s ability to promote code free of regressions.
  • Velocity trends: Using a metric like story points completed per sprint illustrates sustained improvements in development speed over time.
  • Progress forecasts: Regularly updating and re-forecasting project timelines accounts for new velocities and amenable completion targets.

There are a few typical reasons why software teams might suddenly accelerate development despite previous expectations:

  • Increased experience with codebase, systems, and business domain
  • Improved skills and approaches within the engineering team
  • Reduced organizational friction and overhead
  • New workflows or infrastructure that boost productivity
  • Requirements aligned closely with developer strengths

Prioritizing Technical Debt Repayment

When software teams reach milestones quicker than planned, they have a prime opportunity to pay down technical debt before moving ahead with new features. But where should they start? It’s essential to categorize debt and prioritize repayment that will provide the most velocity improvements:

  • Critical debt: Fixes crucial bugs, performance problems, security flaws or other glaring issues slowing developers down significantly.
  • High debt: Major code troublespots that take excessive time to enhance or are prompting significant Quality Assurance issues.
  • Medium debt: Suboptimal coding patterns that will noticeably hamper feature delivery at some point soon.
  • Low debt: Inelegant solutions that are annoying but not currently hindering output.

By addressing the highest interest debt first – the trouble areas that will have the biggest impact on team throughput – teams maximize how much velocity improves as a result of refactoring efforts. Descending priority order ranks critical debt first, followed sequentially by high, medium and low debt repayment based on cost-benefit analysis.

Refactoring Strategically

Once teams identify and prioritize the most problematic areas of technical debt, they can begin mapping out refactoring initiatives to eliminate this debt most efficiently while not stopping all feature work. Automated tools can simplify analysis to pinpoint troubled patterns and reduce required effort:

  • Linters rapidly scan code for stylistic or functional flaws based on custom rule sets.
  • Code quality analyzers perform static analysis to spotlight complex or duplicated sections needing rewrite.
  • Test coverage checkers identify untested modules requiring additional QA safeguards before refactor.

Segmenting refactoring work into focused, encapsulated projects with reserved resources interspersed between feature items can keep upgrades targeted. Avoid big bang rewrites and overhaul efforts that aim to fix all debt in one mammoth endeavor. Steadily Improving legacy systems piecemeal limits disruption yet lifts quality incrementally.

Measuring Progress

To determine if technical debt repayment initiatives are achieving intended ROI on increased development velocity, teams should quantify and monitor debt levels over time. Code quality analysis tools as mentioned can automate discovery of problematic patterns. The total volume of these warnings and trouble areas can be tracked iteration to iteration. As code standards improve through refactoring, analysis thresholds should tighten prompting new actions until quality goals are met. Teams can visualize code health metrics using charts that highlight issues, emphasize trends, and set benchmarks for improvement.

In addition to analyzing code itself, tracking structural game-changers helps paint a picture of overarching progress:

  • Lower QA issues logged per release
  • Decreased time required to implement enhancements
  • Shortened intervals between deploying code updates
  • Improvements visible in team enthusiasm and output

Celebrating remediation of notable trouble spots and health improvements reminds teams that concerted refactoring efforts demonstrably upgrade codebases even though benefits accrue gradually.

Keeping Momentum

Paying down technical debt can quickly stall once focus shifts back to shipping features customers want. To prevent debt levels from rebounding as soon as pressure increases, teams should proactively integrate quality safeguards:

  • Institute coding standards and style guides that raise the bar on code elegance from the start.
  • Automate static analysis across projects so warnings surface early as debt enters code.
  • Require signoff checks to catch shortcuts like copy-paste code before merging.
  • Rotate refactoring duties so each developer upgrades legacy segments.
  • Allot iteration tasks specifically for incremental improvements.

By distributing ownership of quality and integrating confinement measures that discourage debt, teams alter legacy practices that view short-term gains as acceptable technical tradeoffs. Gradually, these new habits institutionalize higher intentional standards even during frenzied development cycles.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *