People use the term "technical debt" for all sorts of problems.
But at its core, technical debt means this: At some point, we chose to move faster. We traded some future smoothness for quicker results. Now, because of that choice, we pay a price. Not in money, but in time. Time lost to fixing things, working around old decisions, or just doing the same task over and over. That's the interest on our debt.
We dislike waste. It feels wrong. So, naturally, we want to fix the technical debt.
We go to our clients and say, "Let's fix this problem."
Usually, we hear one of two answers:
1. No. We need to keep moving fast. There's no time to look back.
2. Okay, but only spend a small part of your week on it. Maybe 20%.
The first answer makes sense, at least. The second? Not so much.
Why split our time between work that helps the client's company and work that doesn't? Shouldn't all our work help the company?
A practical client might say, "If you have an idea that saves us time or money, show me the numbers. Prove it's worth it." If you can spend 8 hours now to save 32 hours later, that's a good deal. But if it takes 40 hours to save 32, maybe it's not worth it.
Sometimes, technical debt is a feature, not a bug. It's proof you moved fast when it mattered.
The companies that never accumulate debt are often the ones that never took risks..
Cutting waste feels good. But the real goal of a business isn't just to cut waste. It's to make money.
.webp)
