Early today I was reading a short blog post over at Scrumology on an age old argument about the fine balance of technical debt and releasing early.Accumulate too much technical debt and your product's development will slow to a crawl attempting to service all the debt you have burdened yourself with. If you spend too much time keeping yourself debt free, you will miss your opportunity as your product's all important time to market is too slow.
So where do you draw the line?
I think we can draw a lot of parallels with financial world. As the article and its links point out, there is good debt and bad debt. Good debt is debt that builds value (business loan) or the opportunity to build value (student loan) and/or builds happiness (mortgage). Bad debt is debt accumulated to gain things that rapidly decrease in value; they worth less than the debt took on. Think clothes, or that new big screen HDTV.
For technical debt to be good debt you need to gain more then it will cost to retire it.
If you can close a big deal by adding a feature to your product within a really short time line, then it makes sense to do so. You after all have bills to pay, you can get feedback from your customers, and your team will get to celebrate a success and build momentum off of a big win. This can really help morale. (Of course adding features to win deals from specific customers is its own bag of worms, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that this feature is an awesome feature that you were planning on releasing in your next major release, but the customer couldn't wait that long.)
Another example of where technical debt is good debt is in cases where the product/solution is a one off, spending too much time and effort on a clean design is simply wasted effort and not needed. The code will rarely be modified. In these cases you only add to the cost of the product.
And in those cases where the products are not one offs, there is a concept of "luxury design" in my opinion. Especially when considering architectures that need to "scale" or other such "not needed yet" nonsense.
If you are creating a new product to release you don't need to worry too much about "scaling" upfront. Having scaling issues is a "good thing". It means you are successful. It means you have the resources and the business case to go ahead and put the right architecture in place so you can scale to the next level. But putting that in too early and you could miss your market window. You have missed your chance to build value and wealth, and to gain customers.
There are of course cases where you cannot accumulate that debt because the cost is simply too high. For example, adding a new feature to a successful ecommerce website where if the customer experience drops due to performance or bugs you get big a drop in revenues. Here you have the data to prove it that the debt is bad. There is a direct and immediate cost.
Of course with gobs of money and time, you can have the best of both worlds. With a proper user-centered design approach to product creation, your user experience team will be doing user research, and running user tests with mockups and wireframes while your team off building components and backend pieces. It's too bad that this is not more commonplace, users around the world would rejoice.
There is an old adage that nothing in life is certain but death and taxes, and in product development I will advance a new adage for consideration. "Nothing in product development is certain but technical debt and too early release cycles".
What do you think? Should technical debt be kept to an absolute minimum, or is a more pragmatic approach needed?
