Technical debt is a well-known problem in many companies. Yet it rarely enters investment decisions. The Conclusion Tech Reality Check 2026, a survey of IT decision-makers and executives in four European countries, shows this gap clearly: 60% of respondents see technical debt as a barrier to innovation, but only 18% factor it into investment decisions.
But what exactly makes up technical debt? Why is it so hard to manage? And how should it be included in decisions? This article provides insights and answers.
What Is Technical Debt?
Technical debt refers to technical shortcomings. It arises when organizations make technology decisions that are expedient in the short term but costly in the long term. Typical examples are legacy systems that are never replaced, temporary workarounds that become permanent, and postponed maintenance that accumulates year after year.
The term is an analogy to financial debt. Technical debt also incurs ongoing "interest": the longer it persists, the more expensive it becomes to resolve. However, it is manageable if it is explicitly included in decisions.
The Consequences Are Visible, but Abstract
Technical debt can show up in various symptoms:
slow systems
rising costs
dependencies
delayed projects
increased security and operational risks
This is part of the problem: the consequences are real, but they often cannot be traced to a single budget item. As a result, they frequently stay in the background.
The study describes it this way: the limitation is known, but it hardly feeds into decisions that could actually reduce it. Debt therefore continues to grow, often for a long time unnoticed.
The Paradox: Recognized, but Not Calculated
The figures from the Tech Reality Check show a clear pattern:
60% of companies see technical debt as a significant or structural barrier to innovation
30% are affected to a very high degree; in every third company, technical debt actively hinders innovation
Only 18% factor technical debt into investment or decommissioning decisions
The key contradiction: technical debt is recognized in practice, but rarely addressed consistently.
Why Cost Transparency Alone Is Not Enough
At first glance, most companies appear well positioned. According to the study, 85% have a cost overview based on total cost of ownership (TCO). However, the value of digital solutions is measured far less often in a structured way: only 28% measure it systematically with clear KPIs and defined measurement points.
The study summarizes it this way: knowing what something costs is one thing. Knowing what it actually delivers is another.
Example: in Germany, 71% report a complete overview of total cost of ownership. At the same time, according to respondents, a large share of digital potential remains unused (64%). Greater cost transparency therefore does not automatically lead to better use. It merely reveals that shortcomings are visible, which points to awareness of the problem rather than to efficiency.
Typical Mistakes in Dealing with Technical Debt
Mistake 1: Debt is recognized but postponed. Many companies know that structural IT measures cannot wait forever. Yet 72% of respondents see postponing them as a central cost and risk factor.
Mistake 2: Investments made without considering usage and value. In 60% of companies, according to self-assessment, a large share of digital solutions is hardly used. Companies therefore pay not only for technologies they do not fully understand, but also for those they barely use.
Mistake 3: Decisions based on assumptions. Some companies do not measure value systematically and instead rely on assumptions or on political factors and management preferences.
Which factors matter for sound technology decisions is covered here.
Five Steps to Include Technical Debt in Investments
Make debt visible. Record which legacy systems, workarounds, and postponed maintenance tasks exist. Complement total cost of ownership with the question of which systems are actually used.
Assess the debt. For each relevant item, assess its impact on operations, security, and innovation, as well as the cost of postponing it. This "interest level" often determines priority.
Anchor criteria in business cases. Make technical debt a fixed component of every business case. An investment in new functionality should check whether existing debt makes it more expensive or slows it down.
Actively review decommissioning. Regularly check which systems no longer pay off.
Review regularly. Make technical debt a topic in the steering cycle, for example during budget planning or portfolio reviews. A one-time audit is not enough.
Why Implementation Is Difficult
Technical debt is not purely an IT issue. It affects budget responsibility, corporate culture, and the question of who decides about existing systems. Modernization usually affects several areas at once: business units, finance, and IT must agree on priorities. This interface is where friction often arises.
The study shows that some decisions are influenced by internal political factors or management preferences. This suggests that assessments alone are not sufficient when there are no binding criteria against which decisions can be measured.
Conclusion
The first important step has been taken: technical debt has been recognized. The next challenge is to consider it in decisions. Although many companies know that technical legacy holds them back, it often plays only a minor role in new investments.
Companies that make technical debt transparent, assess it systematically, and include it in business cases and decommissioning decisions create a sound basis for better investment decisions.
Would you like to know where your company stands and how to include technical debt in your investment decisions in a targeted way? Our experts would be happy to support you with an initial assessment.
