Skip to content

Navigating the AI Paradox: Preventing New Technical Debt

The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in development presents a significant challenge: while most executives anticipate cost savings, nearly half fear AI will introduce fresh technical debt. Successfully integrating AI requires focused strategy to avoid hidden long-term liabilities.

Key Findings from the HFS/Unqork Study

A recent survey conducted by HFS Research and Unqork of 123 executives and managers from large firms revealed a tension between cost expectations and risk awareness regarding AI adoption:

  • Cost Expectations: 84% anticipate cost reductions, and 80% expect productivity gains from AI.
  • Debt Concerns: A significant 43% of IT managers fear AI will generate new technical debt.
  • Optimism on Cleanup: Conversely, 55% hope AI will help reduce existing technical debt.

The study authors highlighted that the concern over increasing debt stems from "real anxiety about security, legacy integration, and black-box behavior as AI scales across the stack." The top technical concerns among respondents were security vulnerabilities (59%), legacy integration issues (50%), and loss of visibility (42%).

Defining the Risk: Technical Debt and AI

Technical debt is created when teams prioritize speed by implementing quick fixes or shortcuts instead of investing in long-term, structurally sound solutions. This inevitably leads to more expensive maintenance and rework later.

The problem is pervasive, existing at every level of the technology stack. Gary Hoberman, CEO of Unqork, emphasized that even if an efficient AI model generates "beautiful code," that code may still run on "runtimes that are themselves filled with technical debt and security issues." He noted that reliance on unsupported open-source libraries further compounds the risk.

Hoberman illustrated the challenge by citing a client who spent months and massive costs updating a Java Virtual Machine, only to find a newer version released immediately thereafter. He stated that AI risks adding a new layer to this complexity, leading to "unintended consequences, such as runaway maintenance costs and increasing tech debt."

Strategy: Four Pillars to Mitigate AI-Driven Debt

You must implement preventative measures to ensure AI serves as a solution, not a hidden source of future expense. Based on findings from the study, here are four critical strategic pillars to minimize new technical debt:

1. Prioritize Traceability and Governance over Rapid Generation

AI tools that rapidly produce code without clear records of creation, rollback capabilities, or established integration rules should be curtailed. Hansa Iyengar, practice leader at HFS, warned that such systems are not merely fragile but constitute "a future liability." She explained that these efforts appear fast initially but "quietly entrench complexity and make every change harder down the line."

2. Implement Product-Focused, Reusable Architectures

Shifting models toward outcome-driven architectures minimizes bespoke code creation. Hoberman recommended moving toward structures "that minimize customer code creation, maximize reuse, and embed governance." This approach ensures that AI contributes to reducing, rather than generating, debt.

3. Demand Long-Term Strategic Software Investment from Leadership

You must translate software spending into clear business metrics, focusing on outcomes like revenue growth. Iyengar suggested that by quantifying what drives core business operations versus what drives transformation, it becomes "much easier to engage the board in a fact-based conversation about reallocating spend."

4. Mandate Legacy System Modernization

The full benefits of AI cannot be realized if they are layered onto outdated, underlying architecture. Hoberman cautioned that without modernization, "AI will generate more tech debt, not less," as new systems inherit the instability of old ones.