Advertisement

Technical Debt Management: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda for Digital Government

Conference paper
  • 1k Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12219)

Abstract

Technical debt is created when software engineers knowingly or unknowingly introduce shortcuts or unsuitable choices in the development or maintenance of the software system, that will have a negative impact on the future evolution of the system until corrected. Therefore, it is crucial to manage established debt particular in the public sector. The aim of this study is to introduce Technical debt to the field of Digital Government. We create an overview of the state of the art of the knowledge on technical debt management, the methods applied to gain this knowledge, and propose a research agenda to Digital Government scholars. We conduct a systematic literature review, which focuses on the concept of technical debt management. Forty-nine papers published within 2017–2020 are selected and analyzed. We identify several gaps in the existing literature: 1) an absence of theory explaining the relation of events, 2) a shortage of studies conducted in the public sector, 3) and an absence of specific techniques such as observation to study actual technical debt management behavior.

Keywords

Technical Debt Management Managing legacy systems Systematic literature review Technical debt 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This study is funded by the Research Centre for Government IT, which is a collaboration between the IT University of Copenhagen, the Danish Digitization Agency and the self-owned institution ATP. The Research Centre’s external funding partners were not involved in the research presented herein, or its dissemination.

References

  1. 1.
    Cordella, A., Iannacci, F.: Information systems in the public sector: the e-Government enactment framework. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 19, 52–66 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cunningham, W.: The WyCash portfolio management system. ACM SIGPLAN OOPS Messenger 4, 29–30 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rios, N., de Mendonça Neto, M.G., Spínola, R.O.: A tertiary study on technical debt: types, management strategies, research trends, and base information for practitioners. Inf. Softw. Technol. 102, 117–145 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Griffith, I., Taffahi, H., Izurieta, C., Claudio, D.: A simulation study of practical methods for technical debt management in agile software development. In: Proceedings - Winter Simulation Conference (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alves, N.S.R., Mendes, T.S., De Mendonça, M.G., Spínola, R.O., Shull, F., Seaman, C.: Identification and management of technical debt: a systematic mapping study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 70, 100–121 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scholl, H.J.: Digital government: looking back and ahead on a fascinating domain of research and practice. Digit. Gov. Res. Pract. 1, 1–12 (2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dečman, M., Jukić, T.: Editorial for EJEG 15(1), 57 (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Danish Ministry of Finance: Regeringens kasseeftersyn på it-området. Denmark, Copenhagen (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    The Swedish National Audit: Föråldrade it-system – Hinder för en effektiv digitalisering, Stockholm (2019)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holvitie, J., et al.: Technical debt and agile software development practices and processes: an industry practitioner survey. Inf. Softw. Technol. 96, 141–160 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ampatzoglou, A., Ampatzoglou, A., Chatzigeorgiou, A., Avgeriou, P.: The financial aspect of managing technical debt: a systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 64, 52–73 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li, Z., Avgeriou, P., Liang, P.: A systematic mapping study on technical debt and its management. J. Syst. Softw. 101, 193–220 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jeffery, M., Leliveld, I.: Best practices in IT portfolio management. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 45, 41 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Magnusson, J., Juiz, C., Gómez, B., Bermejo, B.: Governing technology debt. In: Proceedings of 2018 International Conference Technical Debt - TechDebt 2018, pp. 76–84 (2018)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schlichter, B.R., Kraemmergaard, P.: A comprehensive literature review of the ERP research field over a decade. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 23(4), 486–520 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past for prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q. 26(2), xiii–xxiii (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boell, S.K., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D.: A hermeneutic approach for conducting literature reviews and literature searches. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 34, 12 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harzing, A.W.: Publish or Perish (2007). https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish
  19. 19.
    Becker, C., Chitchyan, R., Betz, S., McCord, C.: Trade-off decisions across time in technical debt management. In: Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Technical Debt - TechDebt 2018, pp. 85–94 (2018)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    BenIdris, M., Ammar, H., Dzielski, D.: Investigate, identify and estimate the technical debt: a systematic mapping study. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Appl. 9, 01–14 (2018)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    King, N.: Doing template analysis. In: Symon, G., Cassell, C. (eds.) Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges. SAGE, Thousand Oaks (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Blaikie, N., Priest, J.: Designing Social Research: The logic of anticipation. Cambridge Polity, Cambridge (2019)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gregor, S.: The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 30, 611–642 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Whetten, D.: What constitutes a theoretical contribution. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14, 490–495 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Derman, E.: Metaphors, models & theories. Q. J. Financ. 1, 109–126 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Blomberg, J., Burrell, M.: An ethnographic approach to design. In: Jacko, J.A. (ed.) Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging Applications. Lawrence Erbaum Associates, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sutton, R.I., Staw, B.M.: What theory is not. Adm. Sci. Q. 40, 371–384 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fernandez-Sanchez, C., Garbajosa, J., Yague, A.: A framework to aid in decision making for technical debt management. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 7th International Workshop Managing Technical Debt, MTD 2015, pp. 69–76 (2015)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Danish Competition and Consumer Authority: Hvor lang løbetid må en rammeaftale have? https://www.kfst.dk/faq/udbud/nyt-udbud/fase-1/hvor-lang-loebetid-maa-en-rammeaftale-have/. Accessed 19 May 2020
  30. 30.
    Bannister, F., Connolly, R.: The great theory hunt: does e-government really have a problem? Gov. Inf. Q. 32, 1–11 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mathiassen, L.: Designing engaged scholarship: from real-world problems to research publications. Engag. Manag. Rev. 1(1), 17–28 (2017). Article 2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The IT University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Research Centre for Government ITCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations