What is technical debt in IT projects?

Technical debt is like a loan you take to speed up the development of a software product, but then the interest starts to accumulate in the form of increased time and costs for maintaining and expanding functionality. This concept was introduced by Ward Cunningham to describe situations where developers, during intense work, ignore the long-term cleanliness of the code in favor of short-term goals.

Clean code is the dream of every developer, but in practice, circumstances often force compromises. Pressure from the business, deadlines, and limited budgets can lead to releasing functionality before the code is polished to perfection. Temporary solutions gradually turn into "dirty code (code smell)," which complicates further work.

One of the most important reasons why code turns from clean to dirty is the lack of documentation and automated tests. Documentation helps new team members understand the project faster, while automated tests keep the code in a stable state, preventing unexpected errors during changes.

The development of monolithic projects, where changes in one place can unexpectedly affect other parts of the system, is also a significant obstacle to clean code. Component limitations and a large number of dependencies create a situation where refactoring becomes not just desirable but necessary. However, if refactoring is postponed, the costs will grow exponentially over time because dependent code continues to accumulate.

Other reasons for the emergence and accumulation of technical debt include a lack of clear interaction among team members, leading to a "salad" of different coding styles, and the absence of unified standards for writing code. Below is a list of common causes of technical debt.

Technical debt not only slows down development but also increases the risk of errors and lowers the overall quality of the software product. Similar to financial debt, repaying it requires time, resources, and bold decisions from management for the long-term health of the project and the team.

There are time constraints (deadlines) for implementing the functionality of an online store. The development team decides to quickly implement an order management system. Initially, they decide to use a simple database structure where all order data, including product details, customer information, and transactions, are stored in one table. This solution allows for a quick launch of the project (MVP), but as the number of orders and the complexity of the data grow, such a structure becomes inefficient.

Over time, as the volume of data increases, database queries become slow and less efficient, leading to increased order processing times and decreased overall site performance. Additionally, it becomes difficult to analyze data and provide necessary reports without refactoring the database structure.

Solving this problem requires significant efforts to refactor the database, including redesigning tables, optimizing queries, and possibly implementing new caching technologies. Such refactoring will take time and resources that could have been used to develop other aspects of the project, but without this step, further growth and efficiency of the online store will be limited. And here we understand what 'debt' is. The necessary refactoring can be assessed in terms of time and money (paying the team). By not spending this time/money from the very beginning, we have 'borrowed' from ourselves, postponing work on a more complex system for later. But sometimes technical debt is justified - we create an MVP and launch the project to start earning. Only then can we refinance the funds obtained into code.

This list is not exhaustive, but conceptually I think the essence can be understood.

Pressure from the business (the need to start selling): Often projects are launched before they are fully ready. The decision for a quick launch can create problems that will require time for refactoring and fixing potential errors. It is possible that errors can affect the first impression of potential customers and impact sales.

Misunderstanding the impact of accumulating technical debt: Business owners may not see the consequences of ignoring technical debt, considering it less important than the immediate market release of the product. Sometimes it is quite difficult to explain to someone without knowledge of IT processes why money and time should be spent on rewriting/writing code. Awareness often comes only when technical debt begins to affect the business.

Monolithic architecture: The lack of modularity in system design limits flexibility and requires significant effort for any changes or improvements, slowing adaptation to changing business requirements.

Lack of tests: The absence of comprehensive tests increases the risk of errors, which can lead to serious failures in the future.

Lack of documentation: If a project develops without proper documentation, new team members will spend more time learning the system, reducing their productivity. Additionally, new developers will distract older ones with questions. There may be more requests for code corrections during code reviews (from developers who know the nuances of the code, architecture, business processes, etc.).

Poor interaction/communication: When knowledge and experience are not shared within the organization, work efficiency decreases. T

Parallel development in multiple branches: Parallel programming in multiple branches creates difficulties in merging code, accumulating technical debt that needs to be repaid before launch.

Postponing refactoring: Delaying code optimization creates a situation where the code becomes increasingly inconvenient to maintain and extend.

Non-compliance with standards: Ignoring established standards and conventions can complicate future integration and support of the project.

Lack of competence: When developers do not possess sufficient skills to write clean, efficient code, it can lead to the creation of a problematic product.

Development by contractors: Software products developed by contractors and then integrated into the project often require additional costs for their adaptation and optimization.

Poor management: Ineffective management can increase technical debt due to poorly thought-out processes.

Last-minute specification changes: These changes can trigger a chain of necessary adaptations in the project without sufficient time for their implementation (optimization, testing, etc.).

Scope Creep: Uncontrolled reduction or postponement of the scope of work can create additional pressure and increase technical debt due to unplanned changes in the project.