I agree that the term Technical Debt should no longer be used. The problem is that, while the term "debt" can be understood as having consequences, there is no

I agree that the term Technical Debt should no longer be used. The problem is that, while the term "debt" can be understood as having consequences, there is no way to accurately measure the "interest" or "depreciation" on technical solutions. And if I can't measure these things then I can't effectively make decisions. Interest is measured as "annual cost of borrowing" and you can see the interest payments on the bottom line. How does one define an "interest rate" on a technical decision made at design time? How can one make management see the cost of a specific decision in terms of dollars? I say you can't. Depreciation is also measurable as the "consumption of useful value over time". Sure, depreciation is a mostly made-up thing (e.g. the lifetime of a "durable good" is 10 years, after which its value is zero), but it's something that one can reason on in terms of dollars. How does one measure depreciation of a software product encumbered by technical debt? Again, I say you can't. Technical Debt was an interesting attempt by engineers to speak finance to management and finance people, but it never really quite fit. It's time to drop the term and find something else.