The Broken Windows theory of technical debt is broken

Last updated on July 8th, 2021 at 05:27 pm

In the United States, the Broken Windows theory of crime control first appeared in the public conversation in 1982. Kelling and Wilson described it in The Atlantic (then known as The Atlantic Monthly) [Kelling 1982]. Briefly, the theory suggests that in urban environments, we can prevent serious crime by taking some simple steps. They include applying police resources to preventing small crimes such as vandalism, public drinking, and toll jumping. These measures create an atmosphere of order and lawfulness. Gladwell popularized the idea in his explosive best seller The Tipping Point [Gladwell 2000].

In the year before Gladwell’s work appeared, Hunt and Thomas incorporated the Broken Windows theory into their work, The Pragmatic Programmer. They suggest it as a justification for the importance of retiring technical debt immediately upon discovering it [Hunt 1999]. Briefly, the theory as applied to technical debt in software is that tolerating low quality and technical debt in a given asset encourages further degradation of quality and additional technical debt. Within the software community, the Broken Windows theory of managing technical debt is widely accepted [Note a].

Skepticism about the Broken Windows Theory

However, between Kelling’s work in 1982 and the work of Hunt and Thomas in 1999, something happened in criminology. Criminologists and sociologists had become skeptical of the Broken Windows theory as applied to crime prevention. As far back as 1998, investigations had begun to cast doubt on the Broken Windows theory [Harcourt 1998]. In 2006, Eck and Maguire assembled a review of the escalating controversy [Eck 2006].

Meanwhile, O’Brien, Sampson, and Winship, analyzing “big data,” failed to produce strong evidence of the theory’s validity. They did find a weak positive correlation between social orderliness and lawful behavior [O’Brien 2015]. But their research also showed a strong positive correlation between private violent behavior and major crimes. Others noted that what appeared to be positive results for the application of Broken Windows to crime prevention in the 1990s was actually explainable by other phenomena [Note b].

Social scientists and criminologists have taken these findings seriously enough to have founded the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University. The Center maintains an evidence-based policing matrix to assist law enforcement organizations in evaluating the validity of claims about the efficacy of specific tactics and strategies. (See their review of Broken Windows Policing.)

The software engineering community is less skeptical

But even as doubts developed about the efficacy of Broken Windows policing for crime prevention, Broken Windows continued to find adherents in the software community. Software researchers continued to regard the theory as pertinent to managing technical debt in software. The software engineering community thus finds itself, perhaps, in the same position with respect to Broken Windows as it is with respect to the Tragedy of the Commons. Broken Windows and the Tragedy of the Commons are both fine analogies. But the fields that originated them now have better ways of understanding the phenomena in question.

Last words

Maybe it’s time for the engineering community to re-examine Broken Windows as it pertains to technological asset quality and technical debt. At this time, the author is aware only of anecdotal support for the Broken Windows theory of technical debt management. Perhaps the Broken Windows theory will work better in engineering than it did in social science or criminology, but do you want to bet your company on that?

References

[Eck 2006] J. Eck and E.R. Maguire. “Have Changes in Policing Reduced Violent Crime? An Assessment of the Evidence,” in Blumstein, Alfred, and Joel Wallman, eds. The Crime Drop in America, Revised Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, 207-265.

Order from Amazon

• The Broken Windows theory of technical debt is broken

[Gladwell 2000] Malcolm Gladwell. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2000.

Order from Amazon

• The Broken Windows theory of technical debt is broken

[Harcourt 1998] Bernard E. Harcourt. “Reflecting on the Subject: A Critique of the Social Influence Conception of Deterrence, the Broken Windows Theory, and Order-Maintenance Policing New York Style,” 97 Michigan Law Review 291, 1998.

Available: here; Retrieved: June 26, 2017

• The Broken Windows theory of technical debt is broken

[Hunt 1999] Andrew Hunt and David Thomas. The Pragmatic Programmer: From Journeyman to Master. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley Longman, 1999.

Order from Amazon

• The Broken Windows theory of technical debt is broken

[Kelling 1982] Kelling, George L. and James Q. Wilson. “Broken Windows: The police and neighborhood safety,” The Atlantic, 249(3):29–38, March 1982.

Available: here; Retrieved: June 25, 2017

• The Broken Windows theory of technical debt is broken

[Note a] Articles and blog entries about applying Broken Windows to managing technical debt in software:

• The Broken Windows theory of technical debt is broken

[Note b] Articles and blog entries questioning the validity of the Broken Windows theory of crime prevention:

• The Broken Windows theory of technical debt is broken

[O’Brien 2015] [

• The Broken Windows theory of technical debt is broken

Other posts in this thread

• Nontechnical precursors of nonstrategic technical debt
• Failure to communicate long-term business strategy
• Failure to communicate the technical debt concept
• Technological communication risk
• Team composition volatility
• The Dunning-Kruger effect can lead to technical debt
• Self-sustaining technical knowledge deficits during contract negotiations
• Performance management systems and technical debt
• Zero tolerance and work-to-rule create adversarial cultures
• Stovepiping can lead to technical debt
• Unrealistic definition of done
• Separating responsibility for maintenance and acquisition
• The fundamental attribution error
• Feature bias: unbalanced concern for capability vs. sustainability
• Unrealistic optimism: the planning fallacy and the n-person prisoner’s dilemma
• Confirmation bias and technical debt
• How outsourcing leads to increasing technical debt
• How budget depletion leads to technical debt
• Contract restrictions can lead to technical debt
• Organizational psychopathy: career advancement by surfing the debt tsunami
• The Tragedy of the Commons is a distraction
• Malfeasance can lead to new technical debt