Why I Stopped Fixing Technical Debt-and Started Fixing Incentives
Article summary
Every quarter, I’d help teams map their tech debt backlog. Old libraries. Obsolete patterns. Scattered config. We’d prioritize the riskier ones, review some fixes, then…nothing. Debt persisted. Friction returned. People nodded-but they didn’t act. That’s when I realized: tech debt isn’t just about the system. It’s about the system of incentives around it. Where My Old Approach Failed We treated tech debt as an engineering concern. PMs were aware, but uninvolved. If it didn’t map to feature velocity or delivery pressure, it got pushed. We assumed clarity created urgency. We had risk matrices, diagrams, even metrics. But the people who needed to prioritize the work weren’t measured on resilience. We tried to scale cleanup by task, not by behavior. We made tickets. We ran fixits.
Read Full Article on MediumPractical takeaway
The main idea behind Why I Stopped Fixing Technical Debt-and Started Fixing Incentives is to help teams move from broad theory to clear, repeatable decision making. When teams apply this thinking, they reduce ambiguity and focus on improvements that deliver measurable momentum.
Example scenario
Imagine a team facing competing priorities. By applying the ideas in Why I Stopped Fixing Technical Debt-and Started Fixing Incentives, they can map dependencies, identify risks and choose the next move that produces progress without destabilizing their system.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Trying to redesign everything instead of taking small steps.
- Ignoring real constraints like incentives, ownership or legacy systems.
- Creating documents that do not lead to any change in code or decisions.
How to apply this in real work
Start by identifying where Why I Stopped Fixing Technical Debt-and Started Fixing Incentives already shows up in your architecture or delivery flow. Then pick one area where clarity would reduce friction. Apply the idea, measure its effect and share the learning.
Signs you are doing it correctly
- Teams make decisions faster and with fewer disagreements.
- Architectural conversations become clearer and less abstract.
- Changes land safely with fewer surprises or rework cycles.