By Glue Team
"We have too much tech debt."
Most teams say this, but can't quantify it. They don't know: What costs us the most? Where is it? Who owns it? How much is it slowing us down? Without answers, tech debt remains invisible to leadership and unfunded.
Glue makes technical debt visible, quantifiable, and fundable.
Tech debt is pervasive but hidden:
Without visibility, tech debt compounds quietly until engineering velocity crashes.
Glue analyzes your codebase to surface:
Code complexity hotspots: Identifies modules with cyclomatic complexity > 15, functions with 100+ LOC, deeply nested logic. These are maintenance nightmares.
Test coverage gaps: Shows modules with < 50% coverage, files that are never tested, critical paths with flaky tests. Low coverage predicts bugs.
Dependency analysis: Maps all external dependencies, identifies outdated packages, spotlights deprecated versions, detects security vulnerabilities, shows unused dependencies adding bloat.
Dead code detection: Finds unreachable code, unused functions, orphaned modules that consume maintenance burden.
Architecture debt: Identifies tight coupling between services, circular dependencies, monolithic modules that should be split, missing abstraction layers.
Tech debt quantification: Glue estimates the cost:
Before Glue, payment module is described as: "Legacy. Slow to change."
After Glue, you see:
| Metric | Value | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Cyclomatic complexity | 47 (target: < 15) | High bug risk |
| Test coverage | 32% (target: 80%+) | 50% more bugs than similar modules |
| Dependencies | 12 outdated (some critical security patches) | Vulnerability risk |
| Churn rate | 45% (code modified frequently) | Unclear requirements or unstable architecture |
| Onboarding time | Engineers take 4 weeks instead of 2 to be productive | $20K+ cost per new hire |
| Incident correlation | 40% of on-call incidents touch this module | 20+ hours/week spent fighting fires |
Total cost: $400K/year in lost productivity, security risk, and incident response.
Refactoring ROI: 8 weeks of work, saves 200 hours/year = $30K annual savings, payback in 8 weeks.
This quantification gets refactoring funded. Leadership sees ROI, not just "tech debt is bad."
With Glue, you prioritize by impact:
Strategic debt reduction beats random refactoring.
Q: How do we decide between shipping features and paying down tech debt? A: Feature development and tech debt reduction should be balanced: 70% features, 30% tech debt/quality. Ratio shifts when debt becomes a blocker (70% debt, 30% features until it's manageable again).
Q: Should we have dedicated tech debt sprints? A: Both approaches work: continuous debt reduction (20% per sprint) + periodic deep dives (1 sprint per quarter for major refactoring). Combination is often best.
Q: How do we measure if tech debt reduction actually improved velocity? A: Track metrics before and after refactoring: time to implement features in refactored modules, incident rate, test coverage, onboarding time. Measurement proves value.
Keep reading
