I 100% agree, the concept of Technical Debt doesn't exist in any other profession. I think that's a clue.
In most cases, the concept doesn't really clarify anything, but people don't seem to know how to translate 'our' problems into something that is actually meaningful for the other people in the room.
The term 'technical debt' just obfuscates what is really going on. It doesn't provide any real insight.
You may like the blog post I linked in another post here.
It most definitely does exist. They just don't call it that. Every organization that's responsible for a system that produces their revenue and requires upkeep runs into this, they just either don't have a specific name or it's not a name we (programmers) see.
Thank you, this is maybe my point: don't use this 'technical debt' term that everybody and their horse abuses, but use those concepts that are also well-understood in other industries.
Technical Debt is just another name for those concepts that are well understood in industries, but renamed to be directly applicable to the type of work.
And it should be noted that "technical debt" appears to have been coined before "capability trap". And many other industries lack a proper term to describe the same concept, even if they possess it.
In most cases, the concept doesn't really clarify anything, but people don't seem to know how to translate 'our' problems into something that is actually meaningful for the other people in the room.
The term 'technical debt' just obfuscates what is really going on. It doesn't provide any real insight.
You may like the blog post I linked in another post here.