Qualitative study examines technical debt decision-making in software engineering, suggesting a new framework for understanding its socio-technical nature.
Context: Technical Debt (TD) decision-making is a central challenge in software engineering. Although often framed as a rational economic trade-off, this perspective overlooks the complex real-world dynamics through which TD is negotiated, enacted, and justified in practice. Objective: This study addresses that gap by developing an empirically grounded theoretical framework that explains how TD decisions are made, not only as technical choices but also as situated, socio-technical and symbolic performances. Method: We conducted a qualitative study based on in-depth, semi-structured interviews with eleven experienced software professionals occupying diverse roles in the Brazilian software industry. We used a Grounded Theory-inspired thematic analysis to examine how participants describe and rationalize decisions to incur technical debt. Results: Our main contribution is the Situated Performance Framework for Technical Debt (SPF-TD) . This framework re-conceptualizes TD decision-making as a situated performance shaped by five interconnected axes: relational (driven by client and stakeholder relationships), temporal (structured by urgency and delivery pressure), cognitive (guided by heuristics and professional habits), symbolic (enacted through framing and justification), and institutional-political (shaped by organizational culture and power dynamics). The SPF-TD reveals TD not as a static liability, but as a dynamic outcome of continuous negotiation within social and institutional systems. Conclusion: By foregrounding TD decisions’ symbolic and performative nature, the SPF-TD provides a richer and more realistic lens for both researchers and practitioners. It calls for a shift in TD management from purely technical or economic control mechanisms to more reflective, context-aware practices that engage with the human and organizational conditions under which debt is created and sustained.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bittencourt et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: