Managing Technical Debt in Product Roadmaps Through Quantitative Prioritization Frameworks
Keywords:
Technical Debt, Product Roadmap, Quantitative Prioritization, Software Quality, Decision Framework, Agile Development, Architecture Debt, TD Metrics, Debt Refactoring, Portfolio ManagementAbstract
Technical debt (TD) refers to the long-term cost of choosing sub-optimal solutions for short-term delivery gains. Managing TD effectively is critical to maintaining software quality and scalability. However, prioritizing TD within product roadmaps remains a challenge, particularly in fast-paced agile environments. This research explores how quantitative prioritization frameworks can support strategic TD management within product roadmaps. It synthesizes state-of-the-art frameworks, presents a decision-making model, and evaluates them across empirical data from multiple software product case studies. Our findings highlight the efficacy of combining risk metrics, value-driven scoring, and architectural impact assessments in roadmap planning.
References
Ramasubbu, N., & Kemerer, C. F. (2017). Integrating TD and Quality Management. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering.
Anugula Sethupathy, U.K. (2022). API-driven architectures for modern digital payment and virtual account systems. International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science, 4(8), 2442–2451. https://doi.org/10.56726/IRJMETS29156
Garbajosa, J., Fernández-Sánchez, C., & Yagüe, A. (2017). Managing Technical Debt Elements. Elsevier.
Perera, J., Tempero, E., Tu, Y. C., & Blincoe, K. (2023). Quantifying Technical Debt. arXiv:2303.06535
Rosser, L. A., & Norton, J. H. (2021). A Systems Perspective on Technical Debt. IEEE Aerospace Conf.
De Weck, O. L. (2022). Technology Roadmapping and Development. Springer.
Lenarduzzi, V., et al. (2019). Technical Debt Prioritization: A Systematic Review. arXiv:1904.12538
Ozkaya, I., Kruchten, P., & Nord, R. (2012). Managing Architectural Debt. CMU/SEI.
De Almeida, R., Kulesza, U., & Treude, C. (2018). TD Prioritization with Business Objectives. IEEE.
Martini, A., Besker, T., & Bosch, J. (2018). Technical debt tracking: Current state of practice. Science of Computer Programming, 163, 42–61.
Lenarduzzi, V., Taibi, D., & Morasca, S. (2020). Towards accurately estimating technical debt interest. Empirical Software Engineering, 25, 2656–2694.
Kruchten, P., Nord, R. L., & Ozkaya, I. (2012). Technical debt: From metaphor to theory and practice. IEEE Software, 29(6), 18–21.
Klimczyk, P., & Madeyski, L. (2020). Technical debt-aware estimations in software engineering: A systematic mapping study. E-Informatica Software Engineering Journal, 14(1), 7–30.
Martini, A., & Bosch, J. (2015). Towards prioritizing architecture technical debt: Information needs of architects and product owners. 41st Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, 422–429.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Vandana Badiou (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
