I think you’ve misread my post. What is being “addressed” isn’t technical debt itself, but rather the author’s proposed failure mode of totally ignoring muda to focus on overly-incentivized “value add”, which he correctly forecasts will slowly destroy the product and company.
I’m saying that this doesn’t have to be a failure mode, so long as you acknowledge and record when muda has been skipped, and take that into consideration when holding leadership accountable to productivity metrics.
The author of the article.
> who says it needs to be addressed?
I think you’ve misread my post. What is being “addressed” isn’t technical debt itself, but rather the author’s proposed failure mode of totally ignoring muda to focus on overly-incentivized “value add”, which he correctly forecasts will slowly destroy the product and company.
I’m saying that this doesn’t have to be a failure mode, so long as you acknowledge and record when muda has been skipped, and take that into consideration when holding leadership accountable to productivity metrics.