You have a piece of functionality that you need to add to your
system. You see two ways to do it, one is quick to do but is messy -
you are sure that it will make further changes harder in the future.
The other results in a cleaner design, but will take longer to put in
place.
Technical Debt is a wonderful metaphor developed by Ward
Cunningham to help us think about this problem. In this metaphor,
doing things the quick and dirty way sets us up with a technical debt,
which is similar to a financial debt. Like a financial debt, the
technical debt incurs interest payments, which come in the form of the
extra effort that we have to do in future development because of the
quick and dirty design choice. We can choose to continue paying the
interest, or we can pay down the principal by refactoring the quick
and dirty design into the better design. Although it costs to pay down
the principal, we gain by reduced interest payments in the future.
The metaphor also explains why it may be sensible to do the quick
and dirty approach. Just as a business incurs some debt to take
advantage of a market opportunity developers may incur technical debt
to hit an important deadline. The all too common problem is that
development organizations let their debt get out of control and spend
most of their future development effort paying crippling interest
payments.
The tricky thing about technical debt, of course, is that unlike
money it's impossible to measure effectively. The interest payments
hurt a team's productivity, but since we
CannotMeasureProductivity, we can't really see the true
effect of our technical debt.
One thing that is easily missed is that you only make money on
your loan by delivering. Following the
DesignStaminaHypothesis, you need to deliver before you
reach the design payoff line to give you any chance of making a gain
on your debt. Even below the line you have to trade-off the value you
get from early delivery against the interest payments and principal
pay-down that you'll incur.
No comments:
Post a Comment