Technical Debt isn't Accidental. It's a Leadership Choice.


Technical debt doesn’t accumulate by accident. In practice, it’s the predictable outcome of the choices we make about what gets done now versus what we consciously defer. When delivery pressure consistently outweighs investment in sustainability, teams respond exactly as designed. Technical debt as a deliberate trade-off: borrowing against the future to move faster today, with the expectation that the debt will be repaid later. The failure isn’t taking on debt; it’s pretending the loan doesn’t exist. 

I didn’t fully appreciate this until I was accountable for backlog decisions myself. As a Product Owner, I regularly had to choose between delivering in the current sprint or taking the time to fully complete the design. Those decisions felt tactical in the moment — but they accumulated over time. 

That’s why technical debt isn’t an engineering failure. In most organizations, engineers don’t own prioritization mechanisms, funding decisions, or success metrics. Those choices live with product leadership, portfolio management, and executive stakeholders. Technical debt becomes dangerous not because it exists, but because it’s allowed to compound invisibly. 

That leads to the real question: who owns technical debt decisions on your team? In Scrum-based teams, the Product Owner owns backlog ordering and value optimization — which means they play a central role in whether technical debt is visible, deferred intentionally, or ignored entirely. While the Scrum Guide doesn’t assign explicit “ownership” of debt, it does make clear that prioritization decisions sit with product leadership, not engineering alone. If technical debt never shows up in planning conversations, that’s usually a signal that its impact hasn’t been articulated in product-relevant terms. 

As a Product Owner myself, I’ve had to acknowledge that I’m as responsible as anyone for the technical debt we carry. Deferring refactoring, accepting architectural shortcuts, or shipping with known limitations are product decisions, whether we label them that way or not. The question isn’t whether we take on technical debt — it’s whether we make those decisions explicit, traceable, and reversible. 

One practical way to do this is by documenting technical debt decisions directly in Jira, where product work is already tracked. This keeps the loan visible, rather than letting it live in tribal knowledge or code comments. Teams can: 

  • Explicitly label issues as Technical Debt. In the issue description, document why the shortcut was taken, what risks it introduces, and what signal will tell you it’s time to address it. 
  • Link technical debt to the work that created it. Associate debt items directly with the epic that incurred them so the trade-off is visible to stakeholders reviewing delivery outcomes. 
  • Review technical debt intentionally during Backlog Refinement. Make a deliberate decision about when each debt item should be addressed — or consciously deferred. 
These are small, tactical steps, but they change the conversation. When technical debt is documented, linked, and prioritized like any other product decision, it stops being an engineering problem and starts being what it really is: a leadership responsibility. That’s the reality behind the ritual. And it’s a fitting place to end this series. 

Further Reading 

If you want to explore complementary perspectives on technical debt and sustainability: 

  • Technical Debt – Ward Cunningham (for the original metaphor and intent behind the term) 
  • Technical Debt Quadrant – Martin Fowler (for how unmanaged debt shifts from strategic to dangerous)

Agile Engineering: Rhetoric vs Reality series

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AWS Re:Invent 2024

 I have the privilege of attending AWS Re:Invent conference from 02-Dec to 06-Dec. Here's my planned schedule for the week.  Sunday, 01-Dec Depart MSP @ 6:45pm CST Arrive LAS @ 8:12pm PST Monday, 02-Dec Design Secure and resilient relational database architectures on AWS Observability-driven development AWS Fundamentals for the accidental SQL Server database administrator Unleashing AWS Agility with Terraform How to navigate your SQL Server Migration journey with AWS Deep Dive into Amazon DynamoDB using Design Puzzles Visionaries in the Stadium w/ Angela Duckworth and some AI folks Tuesday, 03-Dec Identify and manage Amazon Aurora & RDS Snapshots Scalable database solutions with Aurora PostgreSQL Limitless Database Data models for Amazon Neptune using GenAI and diagram-as-code tools Deep Dive into Amazon Aurora query plan management Bingo Night Hashicorp Customer Reception @ Chica Wednesday, 04-Dec AWS Re:Invent 5k Race Essentials for migrating from Oracle to Amazon Aurora...
Read more

Tariffs are bad for you.

Headlines from today state that the new Trump administration will put a 25% tariff on imports from Mexico, and Canada. Additionally, a 10% tariff on goods imported from China.  A tariff is a fee charged by the Federal government on goods coming into the country. That fee is paid by the importer, not the exporter.  For example, Target wants to sell PlayStation in their stores, so they purchase them from Sony, who builds these in China. Target receives the shipment of PlayStations, where they will be charged the tariff. Target pays the tariff to the Government to receive these goods.  Target then must decide how to recoup the additional fees. They can either choose to eat the cost and reduce their revenue, or they can increase the selling cost. The outcome is a combination of the two.  As a result, consumer prices, specifically for food and cars are going to go up. And businesses lose money by having to pay tariffs and selling few items.   For th...
Read more