Your Developers Aren't Slow. Your Decisions Are.

You spent six months watching your team build a customer portal that should have taken six weeks. Every small change broke something else. Every new feature required working around three old ones.

"My developers are just slow," you tell yourself. "They keep saying they need to 'refactor' everything."

But when did you last tell them to ship something faster than they recommended? Probably in your last sprint meeting.

You think technical debt comes from bad code, but it actually comes from that moment you said, "Just ship it now, we'll fix it later," and then you never went back.

Here's how it happens: You need a feature to show off at the next board meeting. Your team says it needs four weeks to build it. You negotiate them down to two weeks with a "basic version."

That basic version becomes the foundation for the next three features. Each one makes the original shortcut harder to undo. Your two-week compromise turns into a six-month maintenance nightmare.

The worst part is that in a few weeks, you probably won't remember making that original trade-off decision.

Your customer portal crashes during your biggest sales demo.

Your mobile app runs so slowly that users delete it.

Your "temporary" integration fails when your largest client tries to connect.

You blame the developers, but they remember the conversation where you asked them to skip the proper approach.

Most executives think they're making reasonable trade-offs. Ship fast today, improve later. But "later" operates on geological time. There's always a more urgent priority.

Before you approve that "quick implementation," ask for three numbers.

1. What it costs to build the shortcut version.

2. What it costs to build it properly.

3. What it costs to migrate from shortcut to proper later.

Most shortcuts fail basic math. A $10,000 feature can become a $100,000 liability in just a few years.

Companies that scale treat code quality as they would their financial health. They measure it. They budget for it. They don't let it accumulate accidentally.

When your team spends more than 30% of its time fixing old features instead of building new ones, you have a strategic problem.

Look at your last five "urgent" feature requests. How many times did you ask the team to cut their estimate in half? Now go check those features. How many still work without constant fixes? How many have become maintenance headaches that break every time someone touches them?

Your engineering team doesn't create technical debt. They inherit the consequences of business decisions that prioritized speed over sustainability.

Companies that win take shortcuts. They just know which ones they're taking and plan for cleanup before the mess gets out of hand.

If you found this post helpful, consider sharing it with another executive grappling with AI, technology, and data. If you want to explore AI and other Technology strategies, grab some time on my calendar, and let's chat.

Newsletter Recommendations