3 ms·
Sometimes I think that offensive work is always prioritized ovee defensive work. And then execs and stakeholders think when the code is a mess and a simple cha
by JamesBarney 7y ago
Sometimes I think that offensive work is always prioritized ovee defensive work. And then execs and stakeholders think when the code is a mess and a simple change takes a day and a half it's the developers fault. And it's difficult to say the least to convince stakeholders to defer a feature for a little bit of refactoring.
This why I think it might be useful to allow the stakeholders and pms to decide the % of time spent on defensive work instead of what defensive work to do. And then you have a specific metric on technical debt(we budgeted 30% for defensive work and we've only spent 10% that's a 1000hrs of technical debt)
Something to specifically point to when a stakeholder asks why is this taking so long or why is the application buggy. And ideally this caused a company wide increase in the allotted time for defensive work.
Bonus:It will also give developers who like working on clean projects a number to ask when being hired.
- MBCook 7y ago> instead of what defensive work to do That would solve a problem I saw at a previous job: new features would be described as technical debt, so they could take up tech debt time at the expense of _real_ debt.
- redisman 7y agoThat's beautifully absurd. Bravo, management
- jolfdb 7y agoMy team spends 80% of our time paying down tech debt...by building a new system that will let us throw away the old system later this year, I mean next year, I mean in 2 years, I mean when the last zombie client with no staffing migrates off of it.