7 min read • Guide 718 of 877
Managing Technical Debt in Agile Teams
Technical debt is inevitable - letting it grow out of control isn't. GitScrum helps teams track, prioritize, and pay down technical debt systematically while maintaining delivery momentum.
Understanding Technical Debt
Types of Debt
TECHNICAL DEBT CATEGORIES:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ DELIBERATE DEBT (Tactical choices): │
│ "We know this isn't ideal, but we're shipping" │
│ • Shortcuts for deadline │
│ • MVP decisions │
│ • Temporary solutions │
│ Risk: Low if tracked and planned for │
│ │
│ ACCIDENTAL DEBT (Learning gaps): │
│ "We didn't know better at the time" │
│ • Outdated patterns │
│ • Poor early decisions │
│ • Better approach discovered later │
│ Risk: Medium, accumulates silently │
│ │
│ BIT ROT (Entropy): │
│ "The world changed, our code didn't" │
│ • Outdated dependencies │
│ • Legacy integrations │
│ • Deprecated APIs │
│ Risk: High if security-related │
│ │
│ CRUFT (Accumulated mess): │
│ "It just grew over time" │
│ • Dead code │
│ • Duplicated code │
│ • Inconsistent patterns │
│ Risk: Medium, slows development │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Debt Symptoms
SIGNS OF TECHNICAL DEBT:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ DEVELOPER EXPERIENCE: │
│ • "Simple changes take forever" │
│ • "I'm afraid to touch that code" │
│ • "We need to work around this" │
│ • "Nobody knows how this works" │
│ • "Tests are flaky/slow/missing" │
│ │
│ VELOCITY IMPACT: │
│ • Features take longer than expected │
│ • Bugs appear in unrelated areas │
│ • Onboarding takes too long │
│ • Same problems keep recurring │
│ │
│ QUALITY IMPACT: │
│ • High bug rates in certain areas │
│ • Difficult to test │
│ • Incidents from aging infrastructure │
│ • Security vulnerabilities │
│ │
│ DEBT INTEREST: │
│ Like financial debt, tech debt compounds: │
│ │
│ Year 1: Feature takes 1 week │
│ Year 2: Feature takes 2 weeks (debt) │
│ Year 3: Feature takes 3 weeks (more debt) │
│ │
│ Eventually: "It would be faster to rewrite" │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Debt Management
Making Debt Visible
DEBT INVENTORY:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Technical Debt Backlog │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ │
│ ID │ Description │ Area │ Impact │ Effort │
│──────┼───────────────────────┼─────────┼────────┼────────│
│ TD-1 │ Auth system on │ Auth │ High │ Large │
│ │ deprecated library │ │ │ │
│──────┼───────────────────────┼─────────┼────────┼────────│
│ TD-2 │ No tests for payment │ Payment │ High │ Medium │
│ │ module │ │ │ │
│──────┼───────────────────────┼─────────┼────────┼────────│
│ TD-3 │ Duplicated user │ Users │ Medium │ Small │
│ │ validation logic │ │ │ │
│──────┼───────────────────────┼─────────┼────────┼────────│
│ TD-4 │ Hardcoded config │ Global │ Low │ Small │
│ │ values │ │ │ │
│──────┼───────────────────────┼─────────┼────────┼────────│
│ TD-5 │ N+1 queries in │ Reports │ Medium │ Medium │
│ │ reporting │ │ │ │
│ │
│ DEBT SCORING: │
│ Impact × Frequency of Area Change = Priority │
│ │
│ TD-2 scores highest: │
│ High impact + Payment area changes frequently │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Capacity Allocation
SPRINT CAPACITY SPLIT:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ RECOMMENDED ALLOCATION: │
│ │
│ [████████████████████░░░░░░░░░░] 100% │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ Features 65-70% │ Debt │ Bugs │
│ │ │ 15-20% │ 10-15% │
│ │
│ EXAMPLE - 40 POINT SPRINT: │
│ │
│ Features: 28 points (70%) │
│ Tech Debt: 6 points (15%) │
│ Bugs/Maint: 6 points (15%) │
│ │
│ WHEN TO ADJUST: │
│ │
│ MORE DEBT WORK (25-30%): │
│ • Before major feature development in affected area │
│ • When velocity is noticeably declining │
│ • When security debt is high │
│ │
│ LESS DEBT WORK (10%): │
│ • During critical deadline pushes │
│ • When debt level is manageable │
│ • Temporary - should return to normal │
│ │
│ NEVER 0% DEBT: │
│ Debt compounds if ignored completely │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Prioritization
Impact-Based Priority
DEBT PRIORITIZATION MATRIX:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ HIGH CHANGE + HIGH IMPACT = Priority 1 (Fix Now) │
│ • Areas we work in frequently │
│ • Significant slowdown or risk │
│ │
│ LOW CHANGE + HIGH IMPACT = Priority 2 (Plan Soon) │
│ • Critical but stable areas │
│ • Security concerns │
│ │
│ HIGH CHANGE + LOW IMPACT = Priority 3 (Opportunistic) │
│ • Fix when working in area │
│ • Scout rule applies │
│ │
│ LOW CHANGE + LOW IMPACT = Priority 4 (Accept or Ignore) │
│ • May never need fixing │
│ • Cost to fix > benefit │
│ │
│ │ HIGH CHANGE │ LOW CHANGE │
│ ──────────────┼─────────────────┼───────────────── │
│ HIGH IMPACT │ 1: FIX NOW │ 2: PLAN SOON │
│ ──────────────┼─────────────────┼───────────────── │
│ LOW IMPACT │ 3: OPPORTUNISTIC│ 4: ACCEPT │
│ │
│ EXAMPLE: │
│ Payment module (high change, high impact) → Priority 1 │
│ Legacy report (low change, low impact) → Priority 4 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Paydown Strategies
DEBT REDUCTION APPROACHES:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ SCOUT RULE: │
│ "Leave code better than you found it" │
│ • Small improvements with each change │
│ • No dedicated time needed │
│ • Prevents debt growth │
│ │
│ CONTINUOUS PAYDOWN: │
│ • Regular allocation each sprint (15-20%) │
│ • Consistent progress │
│ • Team maintains skills in debt areas │
│ │
│ DEBT SPRINT: │
│ • Periodic sprint focused on debt │
│ • Usually quarterly │
│ • Tackles larger items │
│ │
│ REWRITE (Last Resort): │
│ • When debt exceeds value │
│ • Requires careful planning │
│ • Higher risk approach │
│ │
│ RECOMMENDED MIX: │
│ • Scout rule: Always │
│ • Continuous: 15-20% per sprint │
│ • Debt sprint: 1 per quarter │
│ • Rewrite: When truly necessary │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Tracking Progress
Debt Metrics
DEBT TRACKING DASHBOARD:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ DEBT INVENTORY: │
│ Total items: 23 │
│ High priority: 5 │
│ Estimated effort: 180 points │
│ │
│ SPRINT PROGRESS: │
│ Items resolved this sprint: 3 │
│ Items added this sprint: 2 │
│ Net change: -1 (improving!) │
│ │
│ TREND (6 months): │
│ Items│ │
│ 30│ ▲▲ │
│ 25│ ▲▲▲ │
│ 20│ ▲▲▲▲ │
│ 15│ ▲▲▲ │
│ 10│ │
│ └───────────────────────────────────────── │
│ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun │
│ │
│ VELOCITY CORRELATION: │
│ • Debt decreased 30% over 6 months │
│ • Average velocity increased 15% │
│ │
│ TIME SPENT: │
│ • Avg 18% of capacity on debt (target: 15-20%) │
│ • ROI: Every 1 pt debt work = 0.8 pts future velocity │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘