Recently came across a hot take making rounds in tech circles: “Declare tech debt bankruptcy.” 💸
The idea sounds refreshingly bold – wipe the slate clean, dismiss all bugs older than X months, and start fresh with only the problems that matter enough to resurface.
On the surface, quite appealing. Who doesn’t want freedom from that crushing backlog?
But after seeing several teams try this approach, a different pattern emerges. ⚠️
Tech debt bankruptcy often creates three unexpected problems:
- 🔄 The same critical issues resurface within months, now with less context
- 🧠 Valuable institutional knowledge about system quirks gets erased
- 🔍 Teams lose the pattern recognition that comes from seeing clusters of related bugs
One manufacturing client tried this approach last year with their inventory management system.
Three months after their “bankruptcy,” they faced a cascade of seemingly unrelated outages.
The root cause? A fundamental architectural issue documented in several “forgiven” tickets.
The connections were there all along – hidden in the notes of bugs deemed too old to matter.
Real tech debt wisdom comes not from wholesale dismissal but thoughtful curation. 📚
Consider an alternative approach that preserves insight while reducing cognitive load:
- Consolidate related bugs into “theme tickets” that capture patterns
- Preserve core knowledge by creating lightweight architecture decision records
- Set explicit criteria for what stays based on impact, not just age
The goal isn’t an empty backlog – it’s a meaningful one that reflects your system’s true challenges.
What might your team discover if you treated old bugs as archaeological artifacts rather than liabilities?
Christopher Grant
Founder, Nebari Consulting
Need clarity on a specific tech challenge? Reply to this email, and let’s talk.
Spotted a typo? Consider it a feature not a bug. Now you know I’m not an AI 🤖