Archive: 2016-08

Software engineers increasingly recognize technical debt as a problem they care about, but they lack methods and tools to help them strategically plan, track, and pay down debt. The concept provides a vocabulary to engage researchers from a practice point of view, but they often lack an empirical basis and data science on which to validate their work on technical debt. Our recent Dagstuhl Seminar on Managing Technical Debt in Software Engineering provided a venue for assessing how far the study of technical debt has come and envisioning where we need to go to further the science and practice of managing technical debt in the software life cycle.

The (ISC)2 Global Information Security Workforce Study (GISWS) forecasts a shortfall of 1.5 million cybersecurity professionals by 2020. Government sources also project critical shortages of cybersecurity professionals. This predicted shortfall is troubling because the growing number and sophistication of cyber attacks threatens our infrastructure, which is increasingly software dependent. This blog post--derived from the paper Meeting Industry Needs for Secure Software Development, which I coauthored with Girish Seshagiri and Julie Howar--describes a collaboration involving industry, government, and academia to address this shortfall by developing a two-year degree program at a community college in secure software development.

Edward J. Schwartz, a research scientist on the vulnerability analysis team, co-authored this post.

Software engineers face a universal problem when developing software: weighing the benefit of an approach that is expedient in the short-term, but which can lead to complexity and cost over the long term. In software-intensive systems, these tradeoffs can create technical debt, which is a design or implementation construct that is expedient in the short term, but which sets up a technical context that can make future changes more costly or even impossible.