I mean no disrespect, Ben. I am merely pointing out the fact that you bring up the issue of technical debt, for instance, but you don't delve into the root cau

I mean no disrespect, Ben. I am merely pointing out the fact that you bring up the issue of technical debt, for instance, but you don't delve into the root cause of it. Instead, you talk about how enterprises have technical debt vs. digital leaders who don't. However, the root cause of technical debt is not enterprise vs. digital leaders. It exists in both camps, and the reasons for it are largely political. So, how do you address that? How do you convince the owner of a company that creating technical debt to save a week now will almost surly blossom into the loss of months down the road? Legacy technology is another issue I don't feel you fully addressed. For example, there are many companies that start new projects using legacy technology, or the wrong technology, again for political reasons. I've seen reasoning like "We're a Microsoft shop," and "It's easy to hire Ruby developers," as the main drivers of technology choice, rather than a thoughtful consideration of the requirements of a project, and what technologies are best suited to solve the problem at hand. I appreciate the time and effort you put in to communicating your ideas, and do not mean to diminish from that at all. I do think if you added a little more meat and citations to your arguments, and got rid of some of the sales-pitching at the end, you could strengthen your article quite a bit though.