I think best is not to ask the product manager for permission to address technical debt but to do it as a regular part of the job. And it's better to do this in an ongoing manner vs letting it pile up until nothing works anymore.
Quantifying the improvements you get from addressing technical debt is a losing game. Most likely you will have to bullshit some numbers together.
+1. If the feature or whatever is delayed because of 'hurdles'... sorry, technical debt, the business is lucky I'm here to deal with it.
The PM wasn't hired to make these decisions, they will not be required [for this]. Error budgets, delivery, operations, and what I see when I open my editor are all core to my job description. I'll refactor it/have my team do so... and argue with others about why we shouldn't at the same time.
I know this isn't ideal, I don't care - that's why I'm here. I've worked with too many people who internalized the field sabotage manual. I've been hired, promoted, and stolen for my ability to cut through nonsense.
My role (SRE) was made as a consequence of institutionalized technical debt. It provides nothing really new, hopefully picking up slack [that others created] while avoiding unproductive feedback loops.
This scene from "Breaking Bad" comes to mind. Apologies for the language, the character is known for it:
Chemist: Who do you think you are?
Jesse: I'm the guy your boss brought here to show you how it's done. And if this is how you run your lab, no wonder. You are lucky he hasn't fired your ass. Now, if you don't want that to happen, I suggest you stop whining like a little bitch and do what I say.
I have, and will, write RCAs for the roles we [and our technical debt] played in outages. I've published more of my product than any given development team, let's try.
especially when technical debt originates from unknown or forgotten business requirements. Shouldn't take apart the toaster when its actually a microwave because that may actually kill us.
Seeing it as risk is important. If they choose to overlook it, it's being clear that its not being held responsible for things going bad by doing what is asked (something different).
I think this is all good advice when you're working with a PM who is making some reasonable forms of semi-objective decision making.
None of this is helpful when your PM has no business strategy to align with, prioritizes based on what's going to make them look good, and sheds responsibility to the developers when things aren't going well.
It makes me wonder, if you're working with a PM who would even consider the information in the article, would you have to gather it for them?
The PMs who I've work with that conscientious as such already have some grasp of the problem. They see slow delivery of features, bug reports, and listen to the engineering team moaning. They get out of the way on stuff they aren't qualified to decide on. They just make sure that tech debt work stays within a reasonable scope and time budget.
You shouldn't have to "convince" anyone, only to inform them. If they don't trust you to look after the software, they will ultimately get what they deserve, which is a software that doesn't work and is unmanageable beyond repair. As an engineer, your job is to do engineering, not to engage in people manipulation. My policy is to not protect evil manifested as product-greed. Sometimes it's better to let it burn.
What is it that you think engineering entails, exactly? In a software business your job is to produce artefacts the business can sell, without spending so much in the process as to destroy any hope of profit. Part of this involves talking to (not manipulating!) your colleagues, including product management.
This is really not the engineer's doing or problem. That's except if the engineer has been producing wasteful solutions that rack up cloud bills in a way that's 10x more money inefficient than it needs to be. For the most part, corporations waste extreme amounts of money in numerous ways, and the engineer has nothing to do with any of it. For the most part, the engineer has no say in the general business waste.
> in the process
This was unjustified. A good engineer will spend what is necessary, and no more. Generally, the business expenses that typically make or break the business are much larger than the engineer's residual salary.
> What is it that you think engineering entails
It does not entail saving the management from itself. I would in fact be happy to see the management fail if they don't listen to the engineers, telling them "I told you so". This is assuming I had previously documented my concerns in writing. I don't feel the need to have to convincingly "sell my concerns" in the face of resistance when no one really wants to listen anyway. My job is to eliminate my liability, which I did when I documented the concerns exactly once in writing.
In summary, if management is going to act st00pidly by ignoring the concerns noted by engineers, it is really not the job of the engineers to bend over backwards to convince them. Often it is failure that teaches the most important lessons.
It’s not usually the PM that has to deal with the unmanageable mess, it’s the engineer who’s still expected to deliver and gets it held against them when they can’t because of the mess.
That's only if the engineer doesn't have it previously documented in writing, on record, that any delays are due to the mess, and that the mess needs to be fixed the right way. It certainly should not come as a surprise. This is what I meant by "inform them".
In a perfect world, yes that would work. But in most places, that’s just a type of CYA and is seen as the engineer being difficult to work with. There’s never some kind of fact-finding committee that really wants to know the truth of who’s to blame based on an objective investigation. All the business side perceives is that “this person is making noise”, and they don’t want the noise, they just want the feature.
Yes, there are such people who revel in keeping their ears closed, but I do my best to not work for them. I certainly don't want to contribute to putting an extra dollar in their pocket. About half the people are this way, but the other half are open to listening.
There is some real technical debt but there is often also imagined technical debt.
To use an analogy, some engineers may think gothic architecture is ugly and should be replaced. That doesn't mean it is structurally unsound or that there is anything wrong with it.
Most technical debt is imagined at lower experience levels. Shitty and brittle code is not inherently debt - it’s only debt if you have to pay it back to get something else you want. Otherwise it’s “free money”.
Debt is garbage that fights you every day in delivering project goals. Everything else doesn’t need to be addressed now, or maybe ever. Write down what limitation it might introduce and move on. Just hope you have the history and experience to properly solve that problem later - it’s either on the project maintainer or business, and they are only good at their job if they know which will matter.
I have an internal rating scheme I use to classify debt based on risk / lost opportunity:
1. Efficiency
2. Feature Quality
3. Growth
4. Continuity
Efficiency projects lost productivity to the development team. It should eventually be addressed or you will lost momentum in hard to measure ways. Examples: Developer tooling issues, lacking documentation, failure to reach consensus, stable code with suboptimal API design.
Quality projects continuous customer impact due to bugs within certain vertical areas. Examples: Poorly coded features at the “leaves” of your code that don’t affect other areas but block improvement of itself.
Growth projects failure to meet a subset or all future deliverables. A failure is defined as anything that doesn’t meet required timelines to capitalize, or becomes downright impossible. Examples: Bad system architecture, data modelling, shared component that cannot scale to planned future requirement.
Continuity means what we currently have is going to fuck us at any moment. It’s a time bomb that gets worse passively. Examples: Security, major vendor deprecation, declining system stability.
Many developers I’ve worked with have never bothered to categorize debt, which is their fault. Many gravitate toward 1 and 2, but 3 and 4 are true debt today. The others may or may not evolve into 3 and 4 over time. You keep an eye on them but don’t argue about them until they will definitely become 3.
This is easy because a 2 flips to a 3 as soon as the code is even talked about being shared, or if it’s DX related and you’ve been asked to stretch it to the point productivity can be predicted to measurably decline. Come with numbers to prove your case, it will become easier and the evidence based approach plays much better than feelings and complaining.
Also not so coincidentally the 'fun' to fix debt is often prioritized over critical debt.
Case in point, the situation with our flaky/unstable test got so bad that quarter of them are now to set ignore any failures. Pretty much zero interest in fixing.
Meanwhile, the rewrite of a service that had no outstanding bugs (but was originally written by other team but handed to us) is still not done after 4 months...
Another way of looking at this is hiring Technical product managers, aka, folks who have moved to product management from software engineering. This automatically means you have engineers and product managers talking the same language from day one and you don't have to package tech debt as "value propositions". Being software engineers themselves, the PMs at our company usually have a good understanding of when to move slow now (to move fast later), when it's acceptable to apply band aid fixes to keep the ship moving forward or when it's "everything is on fire, this needs a complete rewrite!" time
I've seen this be a hit and miss. My previous product manager has a technical background and moved into production management because he thought product managers suck, and wanted to be a force for good. He was one of the best product managers I worked with.
However, the very unfortunate truth is that _most_ engineers end up in product because they weren't good engineers. So they don't have a good internalised engineering culture as product managers either. My current one is by no means a horrendous one, but is definitely closer towards the bad end of the spectrum, and they moved to product out of management. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt for now, because they've just started the new job recently and maybe it's just friction from learning on the job.
Hah, if only. My last PM position I was right there with engineering pushing for this. Our issue was convincing the C-suite, who were more nervous about our PE owners wanting to divest in 2ish years, so were in full "fatten the pig for market" mode, believing technical stability and foundations could be the problem of the new owners. And then getting frustrated at PM and Eng because roadmap items took longer to deliver because of the complexities or other issues surrounding tech debt.
One should not be convincing a Product Owner to prioritize technical debt. It's an engineering decision, and the Product Owner has no say in engineering decisions, as they are not qualified to judge correctly.
It's like a surgeon convincing the hospital administrator to get some time to clean the scalpels.
A percentage of product managers should come from a tech background on each team, just like there can be benefit from having both self-taught and degree taught software developers who can do different things and complement each other well.
I’m a PM, and this is great advice. Technical debt can mean a lot of things, and some of those I intentionally don’t prioritize. If I suspect it’s a resume-driven development thing, straight to the bottom of the backlog.
This is kind of a weird one. Like, this isn't bad advice for advocating for yourself in general, and it's a far sight better than the approaches that I have seen at a lot of companies (i.e. "complain loudly enough until they give in" or "never, we just never address technical debt and we hope that doesn't come back to bite us"), but even still, I read this and I get the vibes of a dysfunctional organization hiding behind the scenes. Engineers shouldn't _have_ to try to beg, borrow, and steal time to work on technical debt. Moreover, "technical debt" in this article seems like it's being used more as a synonym for "crappy code" than the actual original debt metaphor -- there's no discussion of "interest" (i.e. accumulated costs over time), or payoff events (cases where the debt comes due all at once), or important business milestones (which can drastically affect whether you can even afford to pay attention to technical debt at this time), etc.
Honestly, this shouldn't be something that non-leadership engineers should be concerned with at all. They should be working with engineering leadership to ensure that technical debt is identified and classified, so that engineering leadership can work with product leadership to prioritize the payback of technical debt at an appropriate time, in the appropriate order. Trying to solve this problem at the level of individual teams and individual PMs means that the larger scope of the business's needs aren't available to be considered. Is there a funding round coming up? A big partnership announcement? A hiring round? A hiring freeze? You don't know, and you won't necessarily be told, even if you ask.
On top of that, the standard of measurement for improvement is flawed. The article is suggesting that "technical debt" as a whole is doubling the amount of time it takes to do features, but that's just not the way it works. Technical debt isn't just "crappiness of your codebase" -- you'll never solve that, no codebase is perfect. Technical debt should be tracked as individual, specific issues that will have specific negative effects (the database doesn't have appropriate indices and will get slower over time causing increasing performance issues, the version of the third-party API we're using is being deprecated and if we don't upgrade, we'll have a production outage, our User class has grown out of control and any feature that touches it effectively touches most of the app, causing bugs to appear at a much higher rate and slowing releases of these features, etc). I'm summarizing because this is already a long comment, but these issues should be even more specific than that: you need to describe the issue, the cost to fix it, the pain it's causing now, the pain it will cause over time and what that time frame is, and if there's any events that will require you to have the debt solved Or Else. Talking about technical debt with this information available gives concrete information about why it's valuable to solve. Talking about it with "we will move 2x faster" is unlikely to convince anyone, because software development isn't that reductive. You cannot guarantee that flat, project-wide improvement, and people will remember the time they spent three months not building features for no benefit they can understand.
I feel like the approach specified in the article will work -- at best -- once. A lone engineer doesn't have access to sufficient information to truly make a case for why this is a good time for the repayment of a particular piece of technical debt, can't see the full spread of potential technical debt that _could_ be solved and should be considered, can't adequately convince people as to the benefits of having resolved the technical debt, and honestly shouldn't be spending their limited political capital trying to get their personal pet peeve fixed. If technical debt isn't getting fixed appropriately, that's an engineering leadership issue, and you should be working with engineering leadership to try to help them understand any debt they're not aware of so it can get prioritized appropriately, and then afterwards, work with them to make sure that the specific, visible improvements and "catastrophes avoided" are recognized and respected.
I think best is not to ask the product manager for permission to address technical debt but to do it as a regular part of the job. And it's better to do this in an ongoing manner vs letting it pile up until nothing works anymore.
Quantifying the improvements you get from addressing technical debt is a losing game. Most likely you will have to bullshit some numbers together.
+1. If the feature or whatever is delayed because of 'hurdles'... sorry, technical debt, the business is lucky I'm here to deal with it.
The PM wasn't hired to make these decisions, they will not be required [for this]. Error budgets, delivery, operations, and what I see when I open my editor are all core to my job description. I'll refactor it/have my team do so... and argue with others about why we shouldn't at the same time.
I know this isn't ideal, I don't care - that's why I'm here. I've worked with too many people who internalized the field sabotage manual. I've been hired, promoted, and stolen for my ability to cut through nonsense.
My role (SRE) was made as a consequence of institutionalized technical debt. It provides nothing really new, hopefully picking up slack [that others created] while avoiding unproductive feedback loops.
This scene from "Breaking Bad" comes to mind. Apologies for the language, the character is known for it:
I have, and will, write RCAs for the roles we [and our technical debt] played in outages. I've published more of my product than any given development team, let's try.Sadly true.
In the time spent gathering believable information to present, you could probably address a reasonable number of small tech debt items.
Large tech debt items probably can't be resolved without some major business-impacting issues. At which point, you might rather not be around.
Regarding bullshitting numbers, I think it's especially a losing game when you are presenting numbers to more experienced professional bullshitters.
especially when technical debt originates from unknown or forgotten business requirements. Shouldn't take apart the toaster when its actually a microwave because that may actually kill us.
"I think it's especially a losing game when you are presenting numbers to more experienced professional bullshitters."
I think pro bullshitters know it's all BS. The real problem are the people who haven't realized that yet :-)
Seeing it as risk is important. If they choose to overlook it, it's being clear that its not being held responsible for things going bad by doing what is asked (something different).
I think this is all good advice when you're working with a PM who is making some reasonable forms of semi-objective decision making.
None of this is helpful when your PM has no business strategy to align with, prioritizes based on what's going to make them look good, and sheds responsibility to the developers when things aren't going well.
It makes me wonder, if you're working with a PM who would even consider the information in the article, would you have to gather it for them?
The PMs who I've work with that conscientious as such already have some grasp of the problem. They see slow delivery of features, bug reports, and listen to the engineering team moaning. They get out of the way on stuff they aren't qualified to decide on. They just make sure that tech debt work stays within a reasonable scope and time budget.
You shouldn't have to "convince" anyone, only to inform them. If they don't trust you to look after the software, they will ultimately get what they deserve, which is a software that doesn't work and is unmanageable beyond repair. As an engineer, your job is to do engineering, not to engage in people manipulation. My policy is to not protect evil manifested as product-greed. Sometimes it's better to let it burn.
What is it that you think engineering entails, exactly? In a software business your job is to produce artefacts the business can sell, without spending so much in the process as to destroy any hope of profit. Part of this involves talking to (not manipulating!) your colleagues, including product management.
> without spending so much
This is really not the engineer's doing or problem. That's except if the engineer has been producing wasteful solutions that rack up cloud bills in a way that's 10x more money inefficient than it needs to be. For the most part, corporations waste extreme amounts of money in numerous ways, and the engineer has nothing to do with any of it. For the most part, the engineer has no say in the general business waste.
> in the process
This was unjustified. A good engineer will spend what is necessary, and no more. Generally, the business expenses that typically make or break the business are much larger than the engineer's residual salary.
> What is it that you think engineering entails
It does not entail saving the management from itself. I would in fact be happy to see the management fail if they don't listen to the engineers, telling them "I told you so". This is assuming I had previously documented my concerns in writing. I don't feel the need to have to convincingly "sell my concerns" in the face of resistance when no one really wants to listen anyway. My job is to eliminate my liability, which I did when I documented the concerns exactly once in writing.
In summary, if management is going to act st00pidly by ignoring the concerns noted by engineers, it is really not the job of the engineers to bend over backwards to convince them. Often it is failure that teaches the most important lessons.
It’s not usually the PM that has to deal with the unmanageable mess, it’s the engineer who’s still expected to deliver and gets it held against them when they can’t because of the mess.
That's only if the engineer doesn't have it previously documented in writing, on record, that any delays are due to the mess, and that the mess needs to be fixed the right way. It certainly should not come as a surprise. This is what I meant by "inform them".
In a perfect world, yes that would work. But in most places, that’s just a type of CYA and is seen as the engineer being difficult to work with. There’s never some kind of fact-finding committee that really wants to know the truth of who’s to blame based on an objective investigation. All the business side perceives is that “this person is making noise”, and they don’t want the noise, they just want the feature.
> "they just"
Yes, there are such people who revel in keeping their ears closed, but I do my best to not work for them. I certainly don't want to contribute to putting an extra dollar in their pocket. About half the people are this way, but the other half are open to listening.
There is some real technical debt but there is often also imagined technical debt.
To use an analogy, some engineers may think gothic architecture is ugly and should be replaced. That doesn't mean it is structurally unsound or that there is anything wrong with it.
Most technical debt is imagined at lower experience levels. Shitty and brittle code is not inherently debt - it’s only debt if you have to pay it back to get something else you want. Otherwise it’s “free money”.
Debt is garbage that fights you every day in delivering project goals. Everything else doesn’t need to be addressed now, or maybe ever. Write down what limitation it might introduce and move on. Just hope you have the history and experience to properly solve that problem later - it’s either on the project maintainer or business, and they are only good at their job if they know which will matter.
I have an internal rating scheme I use to classify debt based on risk / lost opportunity:
1. Efficiency
2. Feature Quality
3. Growth
4. Continuity
Efficiency projects lost productivity to the development team. It should eventually be addressed or you will lost momentum in hard to measure ways. Examples: Developer tooling issues, lacking documentation, failure to reach consensus, stable code with suboptimal API design.
Quality projects continuous customer impact due to bugs within certain vertical areas. Examples: Poorly coded features at the “leaves” of your code that don’t affect other areas but block improvement of itself.
Growth projects failure to meet a subset or all future deliverables. A failure is defined as anything that doesn’t meet required timelines to capitalize, or becomes downright impossible. Examples: Bad system architecture, data modelling, shared component that cannot scale to planned future requirement.
Continuity means what we currently have is going to fuck us at any moment. It’s a time bomb that gets worse passively. Examples: Security, major vendor deprecation, declining system stability.
Many developers I’ve worked with have never bothered to categorize debt, which is their fault. Many gravitate toward 1 and 2, but 3 and 4 are true debt today. The others may or may not evolve into 3 and 4 over time. You keep an eye on them but don’t argue about them until they will definitely become 3.
This is easy because a 2 flips to a 3 as soon as the code is even talked about being shared, or if it’s DX related and you’ve been asked to stretch it to the point productivity can be predicted to measurably decline. Come with numbers to prove your case, it will become easier and the evidence based approach plays much better than feelings and complaining.
Also not so coincidentally the 'fun' to fix debt is often prioritized over critical debt.
Case in point, the situation with our flaky/unstable test got so bad that quarter of them are now to set ignore any failures. Pretty much zero interest in fixing.
Meanwhile, the rewrite of a service that had no outstanding bugs (but was originally written by other team but handed to us) is still not done after 4 months...
Another way of looking at this is hiring Technical product managers, aka, folks who have moved to product management from software engineering. This automatically means you have engineers and product managers talking the same language from day one and you don't have to package tech debt as "value propositions". Being software engineers themselves, the PMs at our company usually have a good understanding of when to move slow now (to move fast later), when it's acceptable to apply band aid fixes to keep the ship moving forward or when it's "everything is on fire, this needs a complete rewrite!" time
I've seen this be a hit and miss. My previous product manager has a technical background and moved into production management because he thought product managers suck, and wanted to be a force for good. He was one of the best product managers I worked with.
However, the very unfortunate truth is that _most_ engineers end up in product because they weren't good engineers. So they don't have a good internalised engineering culture as product managers either. My current one is by no means a horrendous one, but is definitely closer towards the bad end of the spectrum, and they moved to product out of management. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt for now, because they've just started the new job recently and maybe it's just friction from learning on the job.
Hah, if only. My last PM position I was right there with engineering pushing for this. Our issue was convincing the C-suite, who were more nervous about our PE owners wanting to divest in 2ish years, so were in full "fatten the pig for market" mode, believing technical stability and foundations could be the problem of the new owners. And then getting frustrated at PM and Eng because roadmap items took longer to deliver because of the complexities or other issues surrounding tech debt.
Snipe/nitpick: start with the topic at hand before using the phrase "Let’s get back to this week’s thought."
You never started. Full page ad right out of the gate. Pass.
Jokingly: my problems compound, now procurement/finance needs convinced?
Somewhat Seriously: Please tell me the revelation is deeper than "have data, buy it from my friend"
One should not be convincing a Product Owner to prioritize technical debt. It's an engineering decision, and the Product Owner has no say in engineering decisions, as they are not qualified to judge correctly.
It's like a surgeon convincing the hospital administrator to get some time to clean the scalpels.
A percentage of product managers should come from a tech background on each team, just like there can be benefit from having both self-taught and degree taught software developers who can do different things and complement each other well.
Never ask permission to do maintenance work. You are a professional. Just do it as part of your daily work.
"Mom says I can't play"
Seriously, be an adult
I’m a PM, and this is great advice. Technical debt can mean a lot of things, and some of those I intentionally don’t prioritize. If I suspect it’s a resume-driven development thing, straight to the bottom of the backlog.
This is kind of a weird one. Like, this isn't bad advice for advocating for yourself in general, and it's a far sight better than the approaches that I have seen at a lot of companies (i.e. "complain loudly enough until they give in" or "never, we just never address technical debt and we hope that doesn't come back to bite us"), but even still, I read this and I get the vibes of a dysfunctional organization hiding behind the scenes. Engineers shouldn't _have_ to try to beg, borrow, and steal time to work on technical debt. Moreover, "technical debt" in this article seems like it's being used more as a synonym for "crappy code" than the actual original debt metaphor -- there's no discussion of "interest" (i.e. accumulated costs over time), or payoff events (cases where the debt comes due all at once), or important business milestones (which can drastically affect whether you can even afford to pay attention to technical debt at this time), etc.
Honestly, this shouldn't be something that non-leadership engineers should be concerned with at all. They should be working with engineering leadership to ensure that technical debt is identified and classified, so that engineering leadership can work with product leadership to prioritize the payback of technical debt at an appropriate time, in the appropriate order. Trying to solve this problem at the level of individual teams and individual PMs means that the larger scope of the business's needs aren't available to be considered. Is there a funding round coming up? A big partnership announcement? A hiring round? A hiring freeze? You don't know, and you won't necessarily be told, even if you ask.
On top of that, the standard of measurement for improvement is flawed. The article is suggesting that "technical debt" as a whole is doubling the amount of time it takes to do features, but that's just not the way it works. Technical debt isn't just "crappiness of your codebase" -- you'll never solve that, no codebase is perfect. Technical debt should be tracked as individual, specific issues that will have specific negative effects (the database doesn't have appropriate indices and will get slower over time causing increasing performance issues, the version of the third-party API we're using is being deprecated and if we don't upgrade, we'll have a production outage, our User class has grown out of control and any feature that touches it effectively touches most of the app, causing bugs to appear at a much higher rate and slowing releases of these features, etc). I'm summarizing because this is already a long comment, but these issues should be even more specific than that: you need to describe the issue, the cost to fix it, the pain it's causing now, the pain it will cause over time and what that time frame is, and if there's any events that will require you to have the debt solved Or Else. Talking about technical debt with this information available gives concrete information about why it's valuable to solve. Talking about it with "we will move 2x faster" is unlikely to convince anyone, because software development isn't that reductive. You cannot guarantee that flat, project-wide improvement, and people will remember the time they spent three months not building features for no benefit they can understand.
I feel like the approach specified in the article will work -- at best -- once. A lone engineer doesn't have access to sufficient information to truly make a case for why this is a good time for the repayment of a particular piece of technical debt, can't see the full spread of potential technical debt that _could_ be solved and should be considered, can't adequately convince people as to the benefits of having resolved the technical debt, and honestly shouldn't be spending their limited political capital trying to get their personal pet peeve fixed. If technical debt isn't getting fixed appropriately, that's an engineering leadership issue, and you should be working with engineering leadership to try to help them understand any debt they're not aware of so it can get prioritized appropriately, and then afterwards, work with them to make sure that the specific, visible improvements and "catastrophes avoided" are recognized and respected.
[flagged]