4 ms·
You have renamed "Design Debt," as outlined here back in 2004 by James Shore: http://www.jamesshore.com/Articles/Business/Software%20Profitability%20Newsletter/
by rrrx3 11y ago
You have renamed "Design Debt," as outlined here back in 2004 by James Shore: http://www.jamesshore.com/Articles/Business/Software%20Profitability%20Newsletter/Design%20Debt.html http://www.jamesshore.com/Articles/Business/Software%20Profi...
Design Debt is not a new concept. It is a common cause of product failure. Taken from the link above:
"'Design debt' explains the problem. When a team is working under pressure, they take shortcuts that compromise design quality. It's like taking out a high-interest loan. The team gets a short-term boost in speed, but from that point forward, changes are more expensive: they're paying interest on the loan. The only way to stop paying interest is to pay back the loan's principle and fix the design shortcuts."
- Mz 11y agoExcept that your link explicitly states that "design debt" is also called "technical debt." This piece is trying to make a distinction between technical debt and something else.
- ddebernardy 11y agoOne could argue wrongly so. To me at least, what OP described as "conceptual debt" is really just design debt. Which all seemed like down to earth technical debt. I honestly see no reason to distinguish the three. Plus they typically stem from the same sources - that is, enterpreneurs and managers that want an MVP without actually grokking the V bit in the latter acronym, and managers who cut corners to slash short-term costs. By contrast, technical debt is very different from, say, organizational debt. Which arises when your organization's staff grows faster than it's able to organize the workload around new hires.
- rrrx3 11y agoYes, precisely.