I've kind of heard of the term "technical debt" before, but "architectural debt" didn't really click with me at first 🤔✨
But actually, it seems like this affects more than just code problems — it has a much broader impact 💭
Let me share what I recently learned, broken down a bit 🌸
What is "Architectural Debt" — It's Not Just About Technology?
First, technical debt refers to problems with code that were created with a "this will do for now" approach when writing programs. They're things that should be fixed later but get left behind due to lack of time or other reasons 🥺
But "architectural debt" isn't just that — apparently it extends to the overall structure of systems, business practices, and even strategic levels 😳
What Kind of Problems Are We Talking About Specifically?
1. Application and Infrastructure Layers 💻🔧
Not code issues, but things like how applications connect to each other, overlapping similar systems, or being too dependent on specific vendors.
When these exist, operational costs can increase, and it can take longer to deliver services ✨
2. Business Layer 📋💼
For example, who's responsible for what, or whether proper procedures exist.
If there are outdated rules or "ghost processes" that shouldn't exist, people might keep working based on misunderstandings 😳
That's why projects can stumble even before they start… 💭
3. Strategic Layer 🎯📈
This seems to be the most serious.
If business strengths or role maps are outdated or misaligned, you might end up making 3-5 year plans based on wrong assumptions 😱
As a result, you might become unable to adapt to changes, or bad strategies might look good 💥
So to Summarize…
"Architectural debt" isn't just about code problems — it's debt hidden in various places, from system connections to business practices and long-term strategies ✨
That's why it's not just programmers who need to be careful, but also management and field staff 😆💡
It might feel like a difficult topic, but to put it in familiar terms, it's like "navigating with an old map" — if you don't update it properly, you'll end up taking unnecessary detours 🗺️💭
So while I'm still learning myself, I think I want to be more careful about this from now on 🥰✨
Hatena
Comments
グレース
Great article. I've seen similar situations in my own experience, but management often doesn't understand the impact of their decisions.
ハンナ
At my workplace, blue-green deployment was introduced without anyone knowing, and we've been stuck with just that one method ever since. The benefits of canary releases should have been significant, but with a system that could only handle two versions, it was impossible. When failures occurred, we couldn't roll back, and the damage quietly accumulated.
クリス
Architectural debt is also an organizational problem. Since systems reflect the organization, design mistakes can be caused by misalignments in team structure or decision-making.
ノーラン
Isn't this just useless middle managers justifying their existence? In reality, IT 'debt' is caused by staff turnover and poor management, and it worsens because new hires aren't properly trained. Mature IT departments have useless managers who don't understand existing IT and always dream of ideal new projects. The solution is to outsource to small, profit-focused companies and not use 'debt' as an excuse.
ワット
'Giving up because it's hard' = 'debt'. Solving technical debt means actually committing to fix it, not categorizing and accumulating it.
サム
They say 'teach those who can't do', but in IT, it feels like 'those who can't do become middle managers'.
レオ
I hate the term technical debt. It's not something you can calculate like financial debt; it's more like unused ammunition.
キンバリー
Couldn't people actually read academic books about software architecture or watch YouTube videos on how to get certifications? The poster doesn't seem to understand the architect's role at all.
ミア
Agile has diluted the important role of architects, causing software to lose direction. With Agile, PMs without technical knowledge pretend to be architects, resulting in messy software.
ロバート
If you've worked on software that's full of patches after just 2 years, that's software without architecture.
ベン
If you've used software with terrible UI/UX, that's proof there's no architect. Like Microsoft Teams or Copilot, for example.
リリー
Software architects are the last line of defense against bad ideas making it into software.
サラ
That makes sense, but how do we explain this to people who classify every random Jenkins job failure as technical debt…
