Why Most Tech Debt Isn't Real Tech Debt

Tech debt has become a catch-all phrase engineers use to describe any part of the codebase they don’t like. But real tech debt is far more specific—and far more useful—than that.

Mislabeling everything as “debt” creates noise. Understanding true debt creates leverage.

What Real Tech Debt Actually Is

Real tech debt has three characteristics:

1. It’s a documented decision

Someone intentionally chose a shortcut or constraint based on context.

2. It involves a known tradeoff

The team understood what they were sacrificing—speed, flexibility, simplicity—in exchange for delivery.

3. It carries interest

Over time, the choice imposes increasing cost on future development.

This type of debt is strategic. It creates acceleration today in exchange for known cleanup later.

What Fake Tech Debt Looks Like

Most “tech debt” tickets fall into these categories:

“I don’t understand this code.”
“This isn’t written the way I prefer.”
“This architecture doesn’t match my ideal mental model.”
“Something feels messy, so let’s rewrite it.”

That’s not debt. That’s discomfort.

Calling every annoyance “debt” hides the real issues and misdirects engineering energy.

Why This Distinction Matters for Teams

When everything is labeled debt, teams:

Over-prioritize refactoring
Under-prioritize delivery
Spend cycles debating style instead of strategy
Erode trust with product and leadership

When only real debt is documented, teams:

Align around strategic cleanup
Make intentional tradeoffs
Communicate technical risk clearly
Build roadmaps that balance innovation and stability

Precision leads to credibility.

How to Use Tech Debt Properly

Think of it as a business concept, not an engineering complaint. Ask:

What was the decision?
What tradeoff was made?
What interest are we paying?
What is the cost of leaving this in place?
What is the opportunity unlocked by addressing it?

Debt is a tool—one that lets teams ship faster when used intentionally.

Final Thought

Tech debt becomes dangerous only when it’s disguised as preference. When teams reserve the label for intentional, documented tradeoffs, it becomes a strategic instrument for speed—not a catch-all excuse for rewriting code.