Technical Debt: The Silent Killer of Innovation (And How Low-Code Can Save You)
IT leaders are often guilty of using language that fails to deliver meaning accurately. One label frequently used in technical leadership is "technical debt," but we believe "technical age" is more accurate. A major part of technical debt is a consequence of three factors, hardly any of which is under the direct control of an IT leader. These are:
So, let’s unpack these and see if we can agree on a more nuanced understanding of ‘technical debt’. Once we’ve done that, we will also understand how a Low-Code No-Code platform is perhaps the only long-term solution to these issues. For now, here is why technical debt is so omnipresent.
Software is not forever
A clear understanding of the technical age begins with recognizing that software isn't timeless. What we call technical debt is a natural and expected outcome. We call it natural because programming paradigms are meant to evolve. In 99% of cases, programming paradigms improve over time.
Consider how user interface front-ends were once popularly made using React libraries. As React evolves, the latest library becomes so different from a previous version that ‘backward compatibility’ disappears. In fact, everyone would want the React community to deliver significant improvements rather than focus on backward compatibility. So, it follows that when you commit to a development paradigm, technical age, at least in terms of that particular paradigm, is part of the package.
Speed-to-market matters more than code maintainability
Many explain technical debt as the accumulated cost of using shortcuts over a long period. However, upon closer examination, this accusatory approach is not correct. In a typical IT team, programmers develop a feature to make it usable first, with the intention of cleaning up the code later.
A CIO has to respect several constraints. One constraint is that when operations teams want new features pushed out, the development team has to push code out and build apps that ‘work fine’. When this becomes business-as-usual, programmers seldom find the time to clean up the code. As a result, technical debt accumulates.
CIOs, tech leads, and programmers have unique styles
An IT team is never static. People come and go, and every new developer brings their unique development style.
This is why IT leaders often observe that when a relatively new development team has to upgrade an application, they generally believe the application was built using outdated coding styles. This opinion is often true. It's natural for new programmers to want to follow newer programming patterns. This stylistic chasm, an entirely expected and normal occurrence, also contributes to "patchwork programming," a symptom of technical age.
A theoretical solution that doesn’t work
However, we must acknowledge that technical debt (or technical age) is a significant problem for enterprises. Every IT leader understands the need to manage it. They also understand that the textbook response is to adopt an iterative approach, constantly taking actions to reduce technical debt. This involves actions such as:
But in the real world, this is difficult. One of the timeless management principles that never gets published, is ‘don’t fix what’s not broken’. For a busy leader such as a CIO, it's hard to find the right mindset for actions without an obvious immediate need. Even if a CIO can find that mindset, acquiring a budget for it is nearly impossible.
Furthermore, a CIO is rarely a permanent fixture in an organization. Their focus naturally shifts to the KPIs against which they are measured. Managing technical debt is a concept that is difficult to translate into KPIs and even more difficult to include in key result area (KRA) discussions between the CIO and the CEO. So, technical debt goes unchecked, stifling innovation over time.
This is why technical debt is a slow poison: it eventually kills the desire to do things fast, to do things better, and to do new things in an organization. So, we are left with the realization that the textbook iterative approach often doesn't work. This leaves the other option: a forced "Big Bang" approach, where an organization simply has to fix the accumulated problems created by technical debt all at once, which is a painful, expensive, and protracted trial.
A practical solution that works: Low-Code No-Code platform
For any organization that finds itself in this situation, is heading there, or is even just starting up and making decisions that will determine whether technical debt becomes a problem, a Low-Code No-Code platform is the most balanced and practically the only future-proof approach.
Technical ageing or technical debt will only stop when organizations adopt development approaches that make new development easy, inexpensive, and modular, with reusable components to build better systems. The best of Low-Code No-Code platforms have always held this promise, but CIOs often become disenchanted when they find these platforms either too hard to use or too shallow for enterprise needs. This is precisely the problem we set out to eliminate when we built Amoga.
Amoga is a powerful No-Code platform + a simplified Low-Code platform, blended into one. Amoga’s LCNC platform is designed to deliver on the promise of a future-ready, enterprise-grade solution. Amoga combines simplicity and power in a way that solves the common pitfalls of other platforms:
With Amoga’s Low-Code No-Code platform, organizations can finally address technical debt by creating a sustainable, modular, and future-ready development environment.
Do you have a clearly articulated need? If so, we strongly encourage you to request a proof of concept from us. We can respond sooner than you expect with a demo tailored precisely to your needs. Request a no-obligation conversation here.