Conquering tech debt for transformation and growth

Tech debt as a strategic challenge

Tech debt reaches beyond engineering concerns—it’s a strategic issue that touches every level of an organisation, from team morale and productivity to overall business agility. Studies show that 20-40% of IT budgets are spent managing tech debt (McKinsey), and it can reduce developer productivity by up to 33%, creating longer release cycles and slowing an organisation’s ability to respond to market demands (Devico). In one stark example, a single bug fix in a financial institution required six months due to the fragility of legacy systems.

Far from being a sign of technical failure, tech debt often stems from necessary trade-offs made to meet business deadlines and drive growth. But when left unchecked, tech debt compounds, leading to complex dependencies and escalating costs that inhibit innovation and agility.

This section provides insights into tackling tech debt as a managed asset rather than a hidden cost, empowering organisations to turn tech debt into an enabler of agility, productivity, and sustainable growth. Drawing from the expertise of our most seasoned consultants, we’ll share actionable strategies for effectively communicating the impact of tech debt, prioritising reduction efforts, and embedding debt management into development cycles—all essential for resilient digital transformation.

Communicating tech debt’s business impact

One of the greatest challenges in tech debt management is securing support from non-technical stakeholders. Effectively communicating tech debt’s relevance to business goals can bridge this gap, framing it as an organisational concern rather than just a technical issue.

• Dispelling the misconception of “bad engineering”: Many stakeholders mistakenly view tech debt as a sign of poor engineering. In reality, tech debt often results from strategic trade-offs made to prioritise speed and meet business demands. This reframing shifts tech debt from a “developer issue” to a shared business responsibility, fostering empathy and alignment across departments.
• Linking tech debt to morale and retention: Tech debt has a direct impact on team morale and retention, especially when developers are spending more time maintaining legacy systems than engaging in meaningful projects. We’ve observed that reducing tech debt improves developer satisfaction, retention, and productivity, as teams feel empowered to work on innovative projects rather than repetitive maintenance.
• Using relatable analogies for stakeholder alignment: Storytelling can be a powerful tool to explain tech debt. An analogy comparing tech debt to an unserviced car—where minor issues, if ignored, can lead to major breakdowns—helps stakeholders understand tech debt’s cumulative impact and importance in maintaining operational stability.

Strategic approaches to reducing tech debt

Effectively reducing tech debt requires both strategy and adaptability. Here, organisational maturity, culture, and commitment to long-term improvements play a pivotal role in achieving sustained impact. At DiUS, we have found the following frameworks particularly effective in managing tech debt strategically.

Aligning organisational maturity and culture

How an organisation manages tech debt often depends on its maturity level and culture. In mature organisations that value continuous improvement, tech debt reduction is more likely to be integrated into development processes. Less mature organisations may need to prioritise building a culture that values technical health to sustain momentum for debt reduction.

Relentless advocacy for debt reduction

Securing commitment to tech debt reduction requires ongoing advocacy. Framing tech debt as a risk helps stakeholders understand its urgency and business impact. Non-technical stakeholders may only prioritise tech debt once they see its consequences, so consistent communication about risks and potential costs is essential. Regular updates on how tech debt affects timelines, costs, and team morale can help maintain visibility and support.

Here’s how to maintain advocacy across the organisation:

• Avoid technical terminology: Terms like “technical debt” can be daunting or confusing for non-technical stakeholders. Reframe tech debt in terms of business impact, such as “system reliability issues” or “scalability challenges,” to foster understanding.
• Regularly update stakeholders: Keep tech debt visible by providing regular updates on its impact on project timelines, scalability, and team morale. This ongoing dialogue ensures that tech debt reduction remains a priority and underscores its connection to organisational health.
• Demonstrate progress: Showcasing progress through quick wins and metrics reinforces the value of tech debt reduction. For example, automating a previously manual task to save developers’ time is a measurable improvement that stakeholders can appreciate.

Demonstrating the impact of tech debt reduction

To sustain stakeholder support, it’s essential to showcase the tangible benefits of reducing tech debt. We have seen that using data to illustrate improvements helps stakeholders understand and appreciate the value of ongoing debt reduction.

• Tracking core metrics: Metrics like cycle time, defect rates, and developer satisfaction quantify the impact of tech debt reduction on productivity and morale. A consistent reduction in defect rates, for instance, reflects a healthier codebase and more reliable releases, demonstrating debt reduction’s value to the organisation.
• Highlighting quick wins and long-term gains: Quick wins provide immediate evidence of tech debt reduction’s value, while sustained improvements reinforce the benefits of ongoing management. At one bank, prioritising tech debt reduction led to a notable improvement in bug resolution times. This success allowed the team to focus on new initiatives rather than constant troubleshooting, showing how tech debt reduction supports efficiency and long-term growth.

Prioritising and balancing tech debt reduction

Not all tech debt is created equal. Prioritising debt based on business impact, complexity, and urgency is essential to drive the highest returns on investment. DiUS categorises tech debt into behavioural debt and structural debt to tailor approaches accordingly:

• Behavioural debt: Inefficient processes or repetitive tasks that consume valuable time but can be addressed relatively quickly. At one enterprise, we calculated the hours developers spent on manual support tasks, building a strong business case for automation. Reducing this behavioural debt freed up 50% of developers’ time, allowing them to focus on high-value projects.
• Structural debt: Deep-rooted issues in system architecture, outdated frameworks, and legacy databases constitute structural debt, which requires significant investment. In one case, we saw how budget constraints led a financial services organisation to prioritise features over refactoring, leading to an infrastructure that needed substantial investment to modernise. Addressing structural debt supports long-term scalability and system resilience.

Integrating debt reduction into development cycles

Rather than pausing development to reduce tech debt, we recommend a steady, embedded approach. Dedicating 20-30% of each sprint to address tech debt allows teams to make progress without halting feature delivery.

• The Boy Scout rule: This principle—“leave the code a little better than you found it”—is a guiding practice for gradual, sustainable improvement. By applying the Boy Scout Rule, teams can improve system quality incrementally, preventing debt from accumulating.
• Tech debt register for prioritisation: A tech debt register helps teams systematically track and prioritise debt items. Using a pain vs. effort scale, organisations can focus on high-impact, low-effort areas that yield quick wins. Our experience shows that this register can be instrumental in managing debt reduction priorities, allowing the team to make targeted improvements without derailing other projects.
• Shortened feedback loops: Faster feedback cycles allow teams to catch issues early, preventing them from growing into larger problems. Shorter feedback loops create a more agile system that maintains stability, empowering developers to manage tech debt without the need for disruptive overhaul efforts.

What happens when you get it right?

Organisations that effectively manage tech debt experience wide-ranging benefits that go beyond code quality. From our experience, a commitment to reducing tech debt can lead to significant improvements in agility, team morale, and cost efficiency.

• Improved agility: Reduced tech debt shortens development cycles, enabling teams to respond faster to market changes and customer demands. For example, at a healthcare provider, automating manual processes led to a 40% reduction in resolution times, freeing up capacity for innovation and reducing dependency on costly support functions.
• Enhanced team morale and retention: Developers working in low-debt environments report greater job satisfaction, as they can focus on high-value work rather than constant maintenance. Reducing tech debt empowers teams, reducing burnout and boosting retention, as they engage in projects that drive business value.
• Cost efficiency: Addressing tech debt reduces maintenance costs, allowing organisations to redirect budgets toward growth initiatives. At a financial services client, reducing legacy tech debt resulted in faster customer issue resolution, improving customer satisfaction and reducing the need for costly reactive support​

Tech debt health check

Reducing tech debt isn’t just a technical fix—it’s an investment that leads to long-term cost savings by reducing maintenance overhead. Managing tech debt effectively means freeing up resources that can be redirected toward new initiatives, enabling faster responses to market changes. Use the following questions to assess and strengthen your approach to tech debt management.

• Is tech debt framed as a business issue? Have you clarified to all stakeholders that tech debt results from strategic trade-offs rather than poor engineering? Are you using examples and analogies to illustrate its impact on productivity, costs, and morale?
• Is debt reduction embedded in development cycles? Are strategies like the Boy Scout Rule being used, with debt reduction aligned to new features? Are 20-30% of sprint resources dedicated to addressing high-priority debt?
• Do you use a tech debt register to prioritise debt? Is there a register in place to score debt items by impact and effort? Are metrics like defect rates and developer satisfaction tracked regularly to measure improvement?
• Are you building relentless advocacy for tech debt management? Is tech debt kept visible through regular updates and quick wins to demonstrate value to stakeholders and maintain support?
• Are you measuring and sharing the results? Do you use a combination of quantitative and qualitative metrics to show how debt reduction is positively impacting productivity, morale, and organisational health?
• Are you seeing the long-term benefits? Does your approach to tech debt support greater agility, improved team morale, and better cost efficiency, contributing to a sustainable foundation for digital transformation?

In the next part of this guide, we’ll explore the people side of digital transformation and how to cultivate high performing teams that are agile, aligned, and equipped to sustain change.