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.
What is technical debt? Why identify technical debt? Shouldn't it be captured as defects and bugs? Concretely communicating technical debt and its consequences is of interest to both researchers and software engineers. Without validated tools and techniques to achieve this goal with repeatable results, developers resort to ad hoc practices, most commonly using issue trackers or backlog-management practices to capture and track technical debt. We examined 1,264 issues from four issue trackers used in open-source industry and government projects and identified 109 examples of technical debt. Our study, documented in the paper Got Technical Debt? Surfacing Elusive Technical Debt in Issue Trackers, revealed that technical debt has entered the vernacular of developers as they discuss development tasks through issue trackers. Even when developers did not explicitly label issues as technical debt, it was possible to identify technical debt items in these issue trackers using a classification method we developed. We use our results to motivate an improved definition of technical debt and an approach to explicitly report it in issue trackers. In this blog post, we describe our classification method and some implications of tracking debt for both practice and research.
Recent research has demonstrated that in large scale software systems, bugs seldom exist in isolation. As detailed in a previous post in this series, bugs are often architecturally connected. These architectural connections are design flaws. Static analysis tools cannot find many of these flaws, so they are typically not addressed early in the software development lifecycle. Such flaws, if they are detected at all, are found after the software has been in use; at this point they are far more costly and time-consuming to address.
In our first post in this series, we presented a tool that supports a new architecture model that can identify structures in the design (based on an analysis of a project's code base) that have a high likelihood of containing bugs. Typically, investment in refactoring to remove such design flaws has been difficult for architects to justify or quantify to their managers. The costs of refactoring are immediate and up-front. The benefits have, in the past, been vague and long-term. And so managers typically refuse to invest in refactoring.
In this post, which was excerpted from a recently published paper that I coauthored with Yuanfang Cai, Ran Mo, Qiong Feng, Lu Xiao, Serge Haziyev, Volodymyr Fedak, and Andriy Shapochka, we present a case study of our approach with SoftServe Inc., a leading software outsourcing company. In this case study we show how we can represent architectural technical debt (hereinafter, architectural debt) concretely, in terms of its cost and schedule implications (issues of importance that are easily understood by project managers). In doing so, we can create business cases to justify refactoring to remove root causes of the architectural debt.
In 2015, the SEI blog launched a redesigned platform to make browsing easier, and our content areas more accessible and easier to navigate. The SEI Blog audience also continued to grow with an ever-increasing number of visitors learning more about our research in technical debt, shift-left testing, graph analytics, DevOps, secure coding, and malware analysis. In 2015 (from January 1 through December 15), the SEI blog logged 159,604 visits and sessions (we also switched analytics platforms mid-year), a 26 percent increase in traffic from the previous year. This blog post highlights the top 10 posts published in 2015. As we did with our mid-year review, we will include links to additional related resources that readers might find of interest. We also will present the posts in descending order beginning with the 10th most popular post of 2015 and counting down to number one.
1. Team coordination 2. Architectural runway 3. Align development and decomposition. 4. Quality-attribute scenarios 5. Test-driven development
This post presents the remaining five technical best practices, as well as three conditions that will help organizations achieve the most value from these recommended practices. This post was originally published in its entirety on the SPRUCE website.
In their haste to deliver software capabilities, developers sometimes engage in less-than-optimal coding practices. If not addressed, these shortcuts can ultimately yield unexpected rework costs that offset the benefits of rapid delivery. Technical debt conceptualizes the tradeoff between the short-term benefits of rapid delivery and long-term value. Taking shortcuts to expedite the delivery of features in the short term incurs technical debt, analogous to financial debt, that must be paid off later to optimize long-term success. Managing technical debt is an increasingly critical aspect of producing cost-effective, timely, and high-quality software products, especially in projects that apply agile methods.
As the pace of software delivery increases, organizations need guidance on how to deliver high-quality software rapidly, while simultaneously meeting demands related to time-to-market, cost, productivity, and quality. In practice, demands for adding new features or fixing defects often take priority. However, when software developers are guided solely by project management measures, such as progress on requirements and defect counts, they ignore the impact of architectural dependencies, which can impede the progress of a project if not properly managed. In previous posts on this blog, my colleague Ipek Ozkaya and I have focused on architectural technical debt, which refers to the rework and degraded quality resulting from overly hasty delivery of software capabilities to users. This blog post describes a first step towards an approach we developed that aims to use qualitative architectural measures to better inform quantitative code quality metrics.
While agile methods have become popular in commercial software development organizations, the engineering disciplines needed to apply agility to mission-critical, software-reliant systems are not as well defined or practiced. To help bridge this gap, the SEI recently hosted the Agile Research Forum. The event brought together researchers and practitioners from around the world to discuss when and how to best apply agile methods in mission-critical environments found in government and many industries. This blog posting, the third installment in a multi-part series highlighting research presented during the forum, summarizes a presentation made during the forum by Ipek Ozkaya, a senior researcher in the SEI's Research, Technology & System Solutions program, who discussed the use of agile architecture practices to manage strategic, intentional technical debt.
Over the past several years, the SEI has explored the use of Agile methods in DoD environments, focusing on both if and when they are suitable and how to use them most effectively when they are suitable. Our research has approached the topic of Agile methods both from an acquisition and a technical perspective. Stephany Bellomo described some of our experiences in previous blog posts What is Agile? and Building a Foundation for Agile. This post summarizes a project the SEI has undertaken to review and study Agile approaches, with the goal of developing guidance for their effective application in DoD environments.
Managing technical debt, which refers to the rework and degraded quality resulting from overly hasty delivery of software capabilities to users, is an increasingly critical aspect of producing cost-effective, timely, and high-quality software products. A delicate balance is needed between the desire to release new software capabilities rapidly to satisfy users and the desire to practice sound software engineering that reduces rework.
As industry and government customers demand increasingly rapid innovation and the ability to adapt products and systems to emerging needs, the time frames for releasing new software capabilities continue to shorten. Likewise, Agile software development processes, with their emphasis on releasing new software capabilities rapidly, are increasing in popularity beyond their initial small team and project context. Practices intended to speed up the delivery of value to users, however, often result in high rework costs that ultimately offset the benefits of faster delivery, especially when good engineering practices are forgotten along the way. This rework and degrading quality often is referred to as technical debt. This post describes our research on improving the overall value delivered to users by strategically managing technical debt, which involves decisions made to defer necessary work during the planning or execution of a software project.
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...