> Who says it’s a flaw? The author of the article. > who says it needs to be addressed? I think you’ve misread my post. What is being “addressed” isn’t techn

> Who says it’s a flaw? The author of the article. > who says it needs to be addressed? I think you’ve misread my post. What is being “addressed” isn’t technical debt itself, but rather the author’s proposed failure mode of totally ignoring muda to focus on overly-incentivized “value add”, which he correctly forecasts will slowly destroy the product and company. I’m saying that this doesn’t have to be a failure mode, so long as you acknowledge and record when muda has been skipped, and take that into consideration when holding leadership accountable to productivity metrics.