How to Balance Technical Debt

Trevor Orsztynowicz

One of the recurring and common complaints about Agile and its associated methodologies is that it doesn’t make an explicit provision for balancing software maintenance with new features. I’ll make the case that those are both related, and explain a system that I’ve seen work in the past to balance both maintenance and quality with new product work. The major benefit of this approach are that it taps into the power of small consistent improvements, and also creates space for software teams to do the work they need to do on an ongoing basis. This methodology works best along side a virtuous process / feedback loop that you can use to improve your teams and companies performance.

TL;DR: Split your sprints / weeks / months into a set of Engineering activities and Product activities. Measure and maintain a ratio of work between these two categories for every period. A healthy ratio is 25% engineering to 75% product. When an objective metric of quality goes below its threshold, then your team increases the ratio to something else like 50% / 50% until the metric improves. This tells you when to make improvements, and when to stop some kinds of improvements.

Everything degrades over time and software is no different

Dependencies go stale, implementations don’t scale with their datasets, number of users increase, number of developers increase, features & complexity increases, and a huge number of other variables all contribute to the subjective and objective quality of a codebase. No matter what we do, maintenance will be some part of the software development process, whether its incorporated into “regular work” or not. If we can agree software maintenance has to happen, then we can move on to the more important question of “OK, how much?”. In order to answer “How much?” we can split our work into categories and measure the type of work happening in those categories.

Planning, Implementation, Quality, and Release are common high level categories. Regardless of your teams series of steps, some work will be more technical debt / engineering / scale [9] related, and some work will be more ‘add button that does X’ / ‘implement new UI’ related. For the sake of conversation, let’s call those two categories “Engineering” and “Product” oriented work respectively. In general, product oriented work are features or enhancements whose primary goal is help the business succeed. Engineering oriented activities are also critical to the success of the business and optimize a separate set of metrics. Both sets of work have to happen in a constrained amount of time. A good software team will be doing roughly 1 part Engineering work to every 3 parts Product work or a 25/75% split. The Engineering work should make a lasting positive change and should be planned and prioritized as well as any product work.

Developer time is a limited resource

A team will probably not accomplish more or less than it did the previous time period, all else being equal (and all else isn’t equal). The team cannot be expected to do engineering related activities in their “spare” time, just as much as they cannot be expected to ship new features on evenings and weekends in a sustainable way.

The success of the company depends on the success of the Software

If the uptime of the application is poor then users will be frustrated and quit. If the code base is untested, has no standards, and takes a long time to build, it will be difficult to modify. If the company has to add new features, and the engineering teams ability to ship code depends on the health of the application / code base, then time must be dedicated to working on both of those things. Without doing both of these activities the business may fail.

Objective measurements of quality are important

Measurements of quality are critical for both Engineering and Product work but quality is often times subjective. Our goal should be to make that as objective as possible. The simplest way to do this is to define and measure uptime but more advanced methods could include choosing from a subset of engineering metrics and weighting them appropriately. If uptime during a given time period is poor, then one could say the quality of infrastructure or code is compromised and has to be addressed. From the businesses perspective, it likely does not care about linting rules, unit tests, or reliable deploy processes. It does care about software issues that will affect business metrics like churn, bounce rates, ARPA, etc. Product and Engineering teams can agree on what quality means to the software and business.

Engineering and Product can agree on a simple contract If the Quality goes down then the engineering team gets more time for Engineering related work. For example if the software experiences an outage then it gets to increase its Engineering to Product ratio from 25/75 to 50/50 until the quality returns. This gives engineering time to do reactive maintenance to address the issues in the outage. If your metric is associated with response times then the same rules would apply. The benefit of a contract is that breaking this contract becomes an explicit decision vs a tacit agreement.

How this works in Practice

The stakeholders (engineering and product) working on landing pages agree that Page Load Times are an important measurement of quality for their product. The team agrees on how to measure this quality using synthetic monitoring with throttling and device types chosen for their target audience and geography.

A baseline measurement is taken and automated. If the measurement is within an acceptable number like <1s for the 95th ntile of samples, then the page is loading “fast enough”.

When the engineering team plans its work - lets just say it’s using 1 week planning windows - it allocates 25% of its work to technical debt related tasks and the remainder to product oriented tasks; Work is completed and features are shipped [6].

If during the course of the 1 week of implementation the page load time goes above 1s for the 95th ntile then the team will change its Engineering to Product ratio from 25/75 to 50/50 to address the needs. This means less landing pages and more time focused on page load time improvements. The next planning session has 50% Engineering work and remainder is Product.

The page load times return to acceptable limits. The next planning session goes back to 25/75 split.


  1. You cannot set or change the quality metric without involving all the key stakeholders. It’s an informal contract within the organization.

  2. The metric should be as objective as possible and thus as automated as possible. Ideally no subjectivity should be included in this measurement and if there are areas of dispute, those should be topics for discussion amongst the more senior staff members.

  3. For those of us who work on APIs that let people integrate our services into their applications, I would argue you have a technical product and the same categories can be held in place

  4. When teams are small it’s easy to maintain subjective alignment on quality because there are fewer people to convince. As teams scale, more people have a voice, and those stakeholders need alignment in order to affect meaningful change. Alignment requires objectivity in order to avoid confusion.

  5. Good objective measurements for software quality are things like uptime, page load times, API response time, number of bugs reported by users, mean time to recover, build & deploy times, deployments, commit to production time, etc. A subset of these will be user affecting metrics and should be incorporated into some kind of index. It’s important that this index suits your business in a way that other stakeholders agree with.

  6. If changes are big and require dedicated engineering sprints then that might be a good time to think about versioning, feature flagging, or doing more planning and acknowleding a bigger project.

  7. Engineering work also categorizes separately. There is reactive maintenance, preventative maintenance, code quality, engineering focused metric improvements, amongst many others.

  8. Transparency is paramount; We should not be sneaking improvements in off hours or refactoring unrelated areas of code with copy change commits.

  9. Scaling is important but it’s critical to know when to stop.

Thanks to @cdemwell, @notmatt, and @jeffhorton for their feedback!