

Features are Debt, not Assets - tal_berzniz
http://berzniz.com/post/128267561586/features-are-debt-not-assets

======
PantaloonFlames
This was a Content-free blog post.

Author asserts "Neutral features don't exist, here's why:" and then doesn't
describe why at all.

And the brief post is not even internally consistent. In the beginning he says
that features are either assets or debt, then at the conclusion he says that
features are strictly debt. Well then the most economically wise decision is
to cut all features, isn't it?

Of course it costs time and money to maintain a product. Everyone knows that.
The more interesting question is how to value the features you've got in your
product vs the time and effort required to maintain them.

And the author doesn't provide any insight at all into that issue.

Just vague and undeveloped thought.

------
applecore
The double entry concept is a powerful metaphor for product development: in
simple terms, every feature "asset" requires a corresponding and opposite
liability to be recorded.

~~~
wyum
I agree and wanted to make a similar point. This is a false dilemma.

It seems to me that every feature has a debt component (cost of maintenance)
and an asset component (value to customers and business). Evaluating those
together, one can determine whether a feature is a net asset or net
debt/liability. In this frame, there _can_ be "neutral" features, where the
feature debt and asset entries sum to zero.

If all features were simply debt, it would be hard to imagine how there could
be any sustainable software companies.

