The concept of technical debt is outdated and misused
Technical debt is a term that gets thrown around a lot, often without a clear understanding of what it actually means. It started as a way to describe the trade-off between writing high-quality code and moving quickly in development. Ward Cunningham, who coined the term, used it to help business leaders understand why investing in better engineering practices mattered. But over time, the meaning has been stretched, diluted, and misused.
Today, “tech debt” has become a vague excuse for all sorts of inefficiencies. Engineers use it to justify work that may or may not provide real business value. Product managers hear it and assume it’s an arbitrary request for more engineering time. Executives see it as an obstacle to shipping products faster. The result? Misalignment between engineering and business leadership, leading to frustration on both sides.
The real issue isn’t the presence of technical debt, it’s the way it’s framed. Vague terminology leads to vague decision-making. If something is worth fixing, it should be justified in concrete business terms: Will it improve speed? Reduce risk? Increase scalability? The conversation needs to shift from an outdated label to a clear understanding of impact.
Ward Cunningham put the idea forward decades ago, and it made sense at the time. But today’s engineering market moves too fast for outdated metaphors. What matters now isn’t debt, it’s optionality.
Optionality is a more effective framework
Optionality is a concept from finance that applies directly to engineering decisions. It’s about keeping your options open, building systems that solve today’s problems and can adapt to future ones. This is how technology should be approached in fast-moving markets.
Instead of framing technical improvements as debt repayment, they should be seen as increasing flexibility. A system that’s easy to modify, scale, and extend is a system that can move fast when needed. And speed is everything in business.
“The more uncertain the future, the more valuable flexibility becomes. Business leaders don’t need to understand every technical detail, but they do need to recognize the value of adaptability.”
Optionality provides a better framework for making strategic decisions about software. It moves the conversation from vague technical concerns to tangible business outcomes. Instead of debating whether something is tech debt, the question becomes: Does this increase our ability to move fast when it matters?
Optionality improves business agility
The ability to change quickly is a competitive advantage. A fintech startup that transitioned from a monolithic system to a modular architecture proved exactly that. Before the shift, even minor updates were slow, painful, and risky. After the shift, the company could deploy new products at an incredible speed, scaling from one to 14 in just two years. That’s the power of optionality.
A flexible system means lower friction for new developments. Microservices, strong deployment pipelines, and modular frontends make it possible to respond to market demands faster.
The companies that win are the ones that iterate fast. That requires a technology foundation designed for change. Leaders should look at their technology strategy the same way they look at business strategy: focus on speed, adaptability, and execution.
Over-prioritizing long-term flexibility can be counterproductive
Optionality is powerful, but like anything, it can be taken too far. Engineers love building elegant systems. It’s in their nature. But sometimes, the focus on making something “future-proof” leads to wasted time and resources.
A mental health startup built an advanced integration layer, following every best practice, clean architecture, functional programming, and a fully tested end-to-end system. On paper, it was perfect. But the project was canceled before it ever launched. Too much time was spent designing for a future that never arrived.
The lesson is simple: flexibility is valuable, but only when balanced with real business needs. A system that never ships delivers zero value. Engineering teams must avoid the trap of designing for every possible scenario instead of focusing on the ones that actually matter.
Business leaders should push for adaptability, but they should also demand execution. That means getting products into the hands of customers as fast as possible while keeping enough flexibility to adjust as needed.
Engineers must balance adaptability with business needs
Software development is changing. AI-generated code is making it easier than ever to build applications quickly. But maintaining software that remains scalable, maintainable, and aligned with business needs is still a human responsibility. Engineers need to think beyond the code, they need to think about impact.
The best engineers understand business strategy. They know when to push for long-term flexibility and when to prioritize immediate execution. They communicate with stakeholders in clear, practical terms, not technical jargon.
Technology should always serve business objectives, not the other way around. Investing in engineering excellence is key, but only when it translates to speed, efficiency, and competitive advantage.
Key executive takeaways
- Tech debt is an outdated and misused concept: The term “tech debt” has lost its meaning, often used as a vague excuse for engineering inefficiencies. Leaders should push for clear, impact-driven discussions on system improvements rather than accepting tech debt as a catch-all justification.
- Optionality is a better way to think about software adaptability: Engineering investments should prioritize flexibility, systems that are easy to modify, scale, and extend. Leaders should assess technical decisions based on how they improve speed, reduce risk, and increase business agility.
- Flexible architecture enables faster iteration and growth: Companies that build adaptable systems can scale and deploy products significantly faster. Executives should prioritize modular, well-structured architectures that reduce friction for new product development.
- Over-prioritizing long-term flexibility can slow execution: Perfect architecture is meaningless if it delays real business value. Leaders must balance adaptability with practical execution, making sure teams ship functional products without overengineering for an uncertain future.
- Engineers must align adaptability with business needs: Software development is about delivering measurable business value, not just writing clean code. Leaders should make sure engineers understand strategic goals and communicate in terms of business impact.
