Home News Navigating the AI Gold Rush: Unveiling the Hidden Costs of Technical Debt in Enterprise Ventures

Navigating the AI Gold Rush: Unveiling the Hidden Costs of Technical Debt in Enterprise Ventures

Navigating the AI Gold Rush: Unveiling the Hidden Costs of Technical Debt in Enterprise Ventures

Over the past 12 months, artificial intelligence has captured the eye of enterprise leaders, prompting them to hasten their investments in AI firms or expedite the introduction of their very own products in an effort to catch up. Nonetheless, in the push to affix this recent era of technological advancement, organizations who’re recent to AI is probably not considering one essential factor that ought to be top of mind when investing or creating recent AI products: technical debt.

Though the concept of technical debt is not recent, AI technology brings about a distinct type of technical debt in comparison with regular software services. And as AI continues to rapidly improve, it’s causing this essential issue to grow together with it.

What Is Technical Debt?

Technical debt, in the best definition, is the accrual of poor quality code through the creation of a chunk of software. This typically stems from either an accelerated go-to-market timeline to fulfill business needs, or to get something on the market in an effort to get customer feedback faster. When considering technical debt, it’s essential to give attention to the deliberate aspect of it, as decision-makers are sometimes aware of the risks with software and the impacts of taking shortcuts for speed. The emergence of AI has brought on a distinct and unique challenge in relation to technical debt, and with it significant risks and repercussions that would result.

As AI systems begin to age and their training data becomes inaccurate and outdated, the fee of investing in AI now outweighs the time and investment required to take care of top quality training data, otherwise often called data hygiene.

Let’s explore how technical debt is accrued, the impact it has on the underside line, and the way organizations can treatment it.

How Do Organizations Acquire Technical Debt?

 There are two ways software can accrue technical debt. One is thru plain old bad code. Organizations may purchase products or inherit them through M&A activity, only to later discover quality issues on top of slow rates of change and innovation. The opposite is when leaders deliberately decide to tackle technical debt.

Relating to AI, just over 72% of leaders wish to adopt AI to enhance worker productivity, yet the highest concern around implementing AI is data quality and control. It seems counterproductive for a corporation to make use of a product promoted to extend productivity, while concurrently detracting time away from the vital work to constantly address any and all quality issues brought on by technical debt that will jeopardize productivity. However the promise of the eventual payoff for increased productivity outweighs these roadblocks within the immediate future, that can come back to eventually haunt the software in the long term.

Model Drift: A Recent Variety of Technical Debt

With the emergence of increased investments in AI, organizations have rushed go-to-market strategies to money in on the generative AI gold mine. While this may occasionally work as a short-term revenue driver, organizations are overlooking what could amount to a considerable amount of technical debt down the road, often called model drift.

Model drift occurs when an AI system’s performance begins to diminish and outputs grow to be less accurate as training data ages out. Taking a look at the AI life cycle, it’s obvious that the training data will should be continually maintained and updated to make sure the responses the machine provides are as accurate as possible—that is where the breakdown begins. When rushing to get solutions out, decision-makers often deprioritize issues similar to obtaining additional training data, maintaining the system’s data hygiene, and ensuring there may be a workforce that has enough people to support these tasks.

As training data continues to age and the gaps between reality and outputs widen, organizations will probably be left with increased costs and time spent on addressing these lapses that would have been avoided with proper planning procedures and protocols. In brief: skipping the following step when planning a go-to-market strategy may allow for faster delivery, nevertheless it’s not definitely worth the inevitable fall out that can cost in several ways in the long run.

Technical Debt’s Impact on the Bottom Line

Technical debt may deeply impact organizational efficiencies — for instance, consider sales teams. When technical debt starts to construct and the speed of change slows, it becomes increasingly tougher for sales reps to entice customers, which slows close rates and inevitably revenue streams in consequence.

Beyond sales, technical debt also greatly impacts developer teams. Not only will it require more time spent focused on updating code, that averted attention effectively backburners innovation. By shifting attention and time to maintenance, the product roadmap then becomes delayed or abandoned, making a ripple effect that would ultimately lead to mistrust between the engineering and industrial side of the business. And not using a product roadmap to follow, sales teams are left with either broken guarantees or nothing to point out prospects, again greatly impacting revenue.

How one can Address Technical Debt

Because the predictability of delivery decreases, organizations will begin to see the breakdown of organizational efficiencies, resulting in conversations about easy methods to address the challenges at hand. There are two ways in which decision-makers can leverage to combat technical debt. The primary is throwing away the platform and code entirely and replatforming, or embedding small incremental changes, much like slowly cleansing a bedroom one item at a time, to eventually get the systems on top of things.

The primary method, re-platformization, requires an entire overhaul of your systems, and is a big and expensive risk to take. Much like a large-scale construction process, any delays in scheduling can throw off product timelines and will cause the entire effort to fail. This method can work sometimes though. Take LinkedIn for instance – after their 2011 IPO, the corporate replatformed the location and is now an enormous player available in the market.

The safer bet, making small changes that can eventually add as much as major improvements, is one other use case to argue for. With developers already interacting with data each day, stepping into to make tweaks here and there can shape up systems to be rid of their technical debt. It also advantages developers’ skill sets, because it requires them to not sleep so far with the newest code and technology standards, which in turn sets a corporation up for technical success as they’ve fewer skill gaps. Implementing an engineer-driven initiative, where they’re allocated 20% of their time to schedule for product updates, is an awesome strategy to start. While this process is far slower than replatforming, it’s less dangerous and still produces value to the business model.

Leave Your Technical Debt Behind within the Age of AI

Because the AI space continues to rapidly develop, we’ll proceed to see more solutions arising touting productivity gains and organizational efficiencies. While that is true, decision-makers must prioritize embedding techniques like continual data maintenance and consider the massive picture in relation to your solution’s life cycle. Investing in AI doesn’t should be costly and overwhelming, and with just a few small changes in planning and go-to-market strategy, you’ll be able to avoid the following mound of technical debt.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here