How to track technical debt
While planning for the technical work we do in GDS, we need a common language between technologists and product people to describe the scale and scope of technical debt.
The language should enable communication of the benefits of individual pieces of work that pay down tech debt. It should also enable us to be clearer about the consequences of not doing something, or leaving a piece of work in a certain state, and should allow us to track the reduction or accumulation of technical debt over time.
The process used for tracking debt should not add significant overhead to planning, and assigning a rating to a piece of technical debt should be quick and simple.
Example consequences of tech debt
- Harder to patch security vulnerabilities
- Harder to implement new features
- Harder to onboard new developers
- Consumes too many compute resources
- Too closely coupled to an architecture
- Causes too many support tickets
- Creates too much chore work
- Difficult to debug issues
- Inconsistent architecture
Example causes of tech debt
- Out of date dependencies
- Hardcoded configuration
- Component has too many responsibilities
- Long running test suite
- Manual deployment task
- Missing documentation
- No admin interface
- Not using lessons learnt since build
Classifying and measuring
Classifying tech debt uses two factors: the current impact of the consequence and the effort required to remove the cause. Both are subjectively measured as high (red), medium (amber) or low (green) with a justification and explanation of the cause and consequence.
These are subjectively combined into an overall high/medium/low risk rating, with the reason for the relative weighting also recorded. This rating signifies the risk and associated cost with not dealing with the item right now. In some circumstances (such as an upcoming planned rewrite or retirement) we would accept a high risk as the item would go away naturally anyway. For this reason, the risks don’t necessarily map directly to priorities.
This is similar to how risks are recorded in a Risk Register. High, medium and low ratings are given for impact and likelihood along with a combined overall rating based on a decision about the relative importance of the impact and likelihood. The higher the overall rating, the more the programme should be concerned about it.
The impact of a piece of technical debt, and the effort required to remove the cause of it, will change over time. Review recorded items of technical debt at appropriate periods. For example: if a problematic system was not being actively worked on at the time a piece of debt was originally recorded, it may have a low impact rating; if it subsequently becomes worked on again, you should review the impact.
Items of Technical Debt should be recorded on a Trello board per product. See GOV.UK’s board as an example. The product’s technical leadership will triage these on a fortnightly basis, agree the assigned ratings and add them to the correct category. They should also review each item every 3 months.
The product’s technical leadership (Technical Architects, Technical Leads, Lead Developers etc) should use these lists during conversations with Product and Delivery Managers when prioritising work. Technical debt existing on the register doesn’t necessarily mean it will be paid down at any point, only that GOV.UK is conscious of its existence and will take it into account in product decisions.
Tracking debt as it gets created will follow the same process, with a link to a Trello card on a team’s backlog for the story that created it. The debt review process doesn’t make decisions on whether the creation of the debt is the correct thing to do, that decision stays with the product team.
If something is too small in scope to be included on the board, it should be recorded in the relevant repository’s Github issues. Tech leads should review these regularly as part of prioritisation.
Whitehall has its own upload management system
Cause: Whitehall’s system for handling uploads of PDFs, CSVs and images from publishing users is different to the Asset Manager application used by Specialist Publisher and others. This is due to it being developed in isolation from another system.
- Inconsistent architecture
- Too closely coupled to physical disk
- Causes support tickets due to delay in processing attachments
Impact of debt: High due to confusion, operational restrictions and support burden.
Effort to pay down: High due to the technical effort involved in changing Whitehall to talk to Asset Manager, implementing missing features in Asset Manager and migrating existing assets.
Overall rating: High