I have been exploring the use of financial analogies with regard to programming and design. Ward Cunningham’s Technical Debt metaphor has become well known. Prior to writing this blog entry, I looked a little deeper into Ward’s metaphor and discovered that it has been interpreted and extended in multiple ways. Since this is my view of the different interpretations, I recommend that you go to the actual source to arrive at your own conclusion.
First let’s examine how Ward used it originally. He used the metaphor to explain the need for going back and improving the code to incorporate what you learn after an actual implementation. I believe that there are a few good reasons for this suggestion:
- We often don’t know the best way of implementing something until we actually implement it.
- The customers learn what they really want only after they have seen an implementation.
So for Ward, technical debt is a good thing, perhaps, even a necessary thing. An implementation, even a suboptimal one, allows you to learn what to implement and how to implement it. This is pretty much the original raison-d’être for Agile.
Uncle Bob applied the metaphor for an example of an implementation that is known to be sub-optimal in the long term but allows you to get things done in the short term. While Ward considers the debt as necessary for understanding the selection and design of the right system, Bob used the metaphor for a worthwhile engineering trade-off. Steve McConnell and Martin Fowler would also include poor coding or “quick and dirty” implementations as technical debt.
If the value of the metaphor is for explaining to others why improperly conceived code will extract a price during future development, just as a debt extracts an interest in future years, then I think that the metaphor works for all these different situations.
But now on to what this article is all about. It is about another metaphor – a metaphor that also goes quite far, I might add. This metaphor comes from Carliss Baldwin and Kim Clark, from their book, Design Rules: The Power of Modularity. It too deals with how the current design of a system impacts the cost and the value that can be realized from it in future.
According to them, a design yields a portfolio of options.
For a modular system, the options are the opportunities to improve the design in a modular or piece meal fashion. A monolithic design, by contrast, gives you a single option. You have to redesign the entire system to improve it.
Baldwin and Clark point to a well known theorem in finance – it is more valuable to hold a basket of options for many different securities than it is to hold a single option on the entire portfolio. So it is with system design. A monolithic design gives you a single design “option” to improve the system while a modular system gives you multiple “options” to improve the modules of the system.
Consider the example of a PC. It is a highly modular. When I bought my laptop, it had an 80 GB disk. Later, I went out and bought a 300 GB disk and all I had to do was swap my disk with the new one. In the intervening period since I bought my laptop, the disk manufacturers were able to improve the disk design so that the same form factor gave me a bigger and faster disk. I was similarly able to upgrade my laptop with additional memory. Each of these modularity “options” represents an axis for further improvement that does not force the redesign of the entire system. The ease of improving the design of a modular system confers dramatic benefits to the customers of that system. This is why modular designs are so valuable.
Of course, it is important to keep in mind that the value of modularity exists only in the context of requirements. Because we need larger disks to store ever increasing amounts of data, it becomes valuable to improve the density of disks. In other words the “option” is only valuable because the value of the underlying “security” could increase. Just because you create a module it doesn’t mean that you have suddenly added value – it must help meet requirements that somebody actually needs or wants.