Stop using ‘tech debt’ to refer to anything old
For a few years now, I have noticed a variety of people misusing the term “technical debt,” incorrectly applying it to almost anything that needs to be updated. Despite Shakespeare’s disregard for the importance of naming (“A CIO by any other name would still be ignored”), naming is strategically vital in enterprise IT. This is not just the complaints of a cranky journalist shaking his fist and…
The term "technical debt" has become widely misused to describe various issues in enterprise IT. This misuse can easily confuse the matter and hinder effective problem-solving. Tech debt refers to deliberate shortcuts taken by developers or SOC staff due to budgetary or time constraints, approved by management. However, when unrelated issues like legacy modernization, cloud shifts, mobile environments, and more are lumped into the same category of technical debt, it becomes unmanageable and ineffective.
This practice not only confuses the issue but also benefits tech vendors by making it easier for them to sell more products. IBM is not alone in employing such tactics. Acceligence, a consulting firm, recommends using different terms to distinguish between genuine tech debt and other issues. "Tech debt" should only be used when there is a legitimate business reason for taking shortcuts, while "shadow tech debt" refers to shortcuts taken without approval.
Another term, "tech gravity," describes legitimate but outdated purchases that are no longer suitable for current needs. The misuse of the term technical debt can lead to organizations paying more in the long run and experiencing broken systems when changes are made to the underlying infrastructure.
Written by urgent.news from Computerworld's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
