Decoding Google’s Technical Debt Management: 11 KPIs to Track

In the relentless pursuit of technological advancement, managing technical debt is not merely a task but a strategic necessity. At the forefront of this battle is Google, a company renowned for its innovation and engineering prowess.  

Google’s approach to technical debt management has evolved into a sophisticated strategy, leveraging key performance indicators (KPIs) to convert technical debt from a challenge into a strategic advantage.  

For CTOs and IT directors, mastering these KPIs is crucial for enhancing software quality and operational efficiency. This exploration delves into how Google has turned technical debt management into a well-oiled machine, offering insights that could redefine your approach to software development and management. 

How does Google define technical debt? 

Technical debt is a term that captures the cost of shortcuts taken during software development, which, while expedient in the short term, accumulate and escalate maintenance challenges over time. At Google, technical debt is a multifaceted issue, encompassing everything from suboptimal code quality to outdated dependencies. The company’s meticulous approach to understanding and managing technical debt is driven by a detailed classification system and a robust measurement framework.  

[Image Source: 10 Pearls]

Google’s definition of technical debt goes beyond the conventional understanding and is rooted in empirical data rather than theoretical constructs. The company has crafted its definition through a comprehensive process involving interviews with subject matter experts and iterative refinements of their quarterly engineering surveys.

This approach has resulted in a nuanced categorization of technical debt, encompassing ten distinct types. These categories range from the need for migration and documentation issues to code degradation and dependency challenges, each with unique implications for productivity and software quality. 

Measuring technical debt: Google’s approach 

Google employs a dual strategy for measuring technical debt: quarterly surveys and engineering log data analysis. The surveys capture engineers’ perceptions and experiences with technical debt, providing valuable insights into its impact on productivity.

Yet, while informative, Google’s researchers have encountered a significant limitation: quarterly surveys serve as a lagging indicator of technical debt. To address this, they sought to develop metrics based on engineering log data, aiming to capture real-time insights into the presence of technical debt. Their focus was on three critical forms of technical debt: code degradation, teams lacking expertise, and migration needs. These areas were selected for their distinct impacts and metrics requirements. 

In their quest, Google’s researchers examined 117 potential metrics, applied linear regression to assess their ability to predict engineers’ perceptions of technical debt. The results were, as they described, “disappointing, to say the least.” No single metric was able to reliably forecast technical debt reports from engineers. Despite this setback, Google continued to rely on their survey methodology and enriched it with additional questions to better understand the nuances of technical debt: 

• To what extent has your team deliberately incurred technical debt in the past three months? 

• How often do you feel that incurring technical debt was the right decision? 

• How much did your team invest in reducing existing technical debt and maintaining your code? 

• How effective is your team’s process for managing technical debt? 

11 key KPIs for to track for effective technical debt management

Effective technical debt management hinges on the right metrics. Google’s approach involves monitoring a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) that provide a comprehensive view of technical debt and its impact. Here are eight KPIs that Google uses to manage and mitigate technical debt, turning it into a strategic asset. 

1. Defect Ratio 

Relevance: The defect ratio measures the number of defects in relation to the size of the software. A high defect ratio often signals underlying technical debt, reflecting poor code quality and maintenance challenges. 

How it helps: Monitoring the defect ratio helps prioritize refactoring efforts and enhance testing strategies. An increasing defect ratio can indicate areas where technical debt accumulates, guiding targeted interventions and improving overall code quality. 

How to measure: Calculate the defect ratio by dividing the total number of defects by a measure of software size, such as lines of code or function points. This metric provides a snapshot of the codebase’s health and helps identify areas requiring attention. 

2. Code churn 

Relevance: Code churn refers to the percentage of a developer’s code that is modified, added, or deleted shortly after its initial creation. High code churn can indicate instability and frequent changes, often associated with technical debt. 

How it helps: Analyzing code churn helps pinpoint unstable areas in the codebase and manage technical debt more effectively. It is particularly useful during development phases to identify problematic code and prevent future issues. 

How to measure: Determine the percentage of lines of code that have been recently edited compared to the total codebase. This metric provides insights into code stability and the potential impact of recent changes. 

3. Technical Debt Ratio (TDR) 

Relevance: The Technical Debt Ratio (TDR) quantifies the cost of addressing technical debt relative to the size of the codebase. This financial perspective helps communicate the impact of technical debt to stakeholders and prioritize debt reduction efforts. 

How it helps: TDR provides a clear view of the economic impact of technical debt, assisting in decision-making and investment justifications. A higher TDR indicates that a significant portion of development effort is dedicated to managing debt, highlighting areas for improvement. 

How to Measure: Assess the cost to fix technical debt and compare it to the size of the codebase. This ratio offers a monetary perspective on the technical debt and helps prioritize debt reduction strategies based on cost. 

4. Code duplication 

Relevance: Code duplication measures the percentage of duplicated code within the codebase. High levels of duplication can increase maintenance challenges and the risk of defects, contributing to technical debt. 

How it helps: Reducing code duplication enhances maintainability and lowers the likelihood of introducing inconsistencies. This metric helps identify areas where refactoring is needed to improve code quality and reduce technical debt. 

How to measure: Use static code analysis tools to identify and quantify duplicated blocks of code. This analysis helps pinpoint redundant code and guide refactoring efforts. 

5. Cyclomatic complexity 

Relevance: Cyclomatic complexity measures the number of independent paths through a program’s source code, indicating its complexity. Higher complexity often correlates with code that is harder to test and maintain, contributing to technical debt. 

How it helps: This metric helps identify complex code segments that may benefit from refactoring. Managing cyclomatic complexity ensures code remains maintainable and reduces the risk of defects. 

How to Measure: Calculate the number of independent paths through the code using static analysis tools. This metric provides insights into code complexity and guides refactoring efforts. 

6. Technical debt quadrant 

Relevance: The Technical Debt Quadrant categorizes technical debt into four types: Reckless, Prudent, Deliberate, and Inadvertent. Understanding these categories helps teams develop targeted strategies for managing and preventing debt. 

How it helps: By categorizing technical debt, teams can tailor their approach to address different types effectively. This framework assists in understanding the origins of technical debt and informs strategies for management and prevention. 

How to Measure: Use retrospectives and team discussions to classify existing technical debt items into the four quadrants. This classification helps in strategizing and prioritizing debt management efforts. 

7. Open bug count and age 

Relevance: The open bug count and age metrics track the number of unresolved bugs and their duration. A growing number of open bugs or long-standing issues can indicate neglected technical debt and deteriorating software quality. 

How it helps: Monitoring these metrics helps prioritize bug fixes and identify areas that need improvement. Addressing open bugs promptly prevents the accumulation of defect-related technical debt. 

How to measure: Use issue-tracking tools to count open bugs and calculate their age. This data provides insights into software health and guides maintenance efforts. 

8. Test coverage 

Relevance: Test coverage measures the percentage of the codebase tested by automated tests. While high test coverage does not guarantee code quality, inadequate coverage can increase the risk of undetected bugs and technical debt. 

How it helps: Maintaining high test coverage ensures that code changes do not introduce new issues and supports safer refactoring. This metric helps assess the robustness of testing practices and guide quality assurance efforts. 

How to measure: Calculate the percentage of code executed during testing using relevant testing tools. This metric provides a snapshot of test coverage and its impact on code quality. 

Additional KPIs to consider turning technical debt into a strategic advantage

While the eight KPIs outlined above are essential for managing technical debt, there are additional metrics that can further enhance your strategy. 

9. Time to Market (TTM) 

Relevance: Time to Market (TTM) measures the duration from feature conception to deployment. An increasing TTM can signal that technical debt is slowing down development and impacting competitiveness. 

How It helps: Monitoring TTM helps assess how technical debt affects development speed and allows teams to balance speed and quality. This metric provides insights into the efficiency of the development process and the impact of technical debt on time-to-market. 

How to measure: Measure the duration from when a feature is planned to when it is available to users. This data helps evaluate the efficiency of the development process and the impact of technical debt. 

10. Code complexity trends 

Relevance: Tracking code complexity trends over time provides insights into how technical debt evolves and affects maintainability. Increasing complexity can signal the need for refactoring and debt reduction. 

How it helps: Identifying trends in code complexity helps anticipate areas needing improvement and manage technical debt more effectively. This metric provides a forward-looking view of code maintainability and technical debt. 

How to measure: Use complexity analysis tools to monitor changes in code complexity metrics over time. This analysis helps identify emerging issues and guide refactoring efforts. 

11. Developer satisfaction 

Relevance: Developer satisfaction reflects how technical debt impacts productivity and morale. Low satisfaction can indicate that technical debt is significantly affecting the development process. 

How it helps: Regularly surveying developers on their satisfaction can reveal areas where technical debt is particularly burdensome and guide improvement efforts. This metric provides valuable insights into the human side of technical debt management. 

How to measure: Conduct surveys to assess how technical debt affects developers’ ability to work efficiently. This feedback helps prioritize debt management strategies and improve overall team satisfaction. 

In brief 

Google’s meticulous approach to technical debt management offers a compelling blueprint for transforming this often-dreaded aspect of software development into a strategic asset. By leveraging a set of well-defined KPIs and continuously refining its metrics, Google has turned technical debt from a hindrance into a lever for operational efficiency and software quality. For CTOs and IT directors, adopting a similar approach can lead to more effective technical debt management, driving improvements in software quality, productivity, and overall organizational performance.