How to integrate technical debt and refactoring work into Sprint Planning

Blog Author

Siddharth

Published

17 Nov, 2025

Integrate technical debt and refactoring work into Sprint Planning

Technical debt never disappears on its own. It builds up quietly until one day a simple change takes twice as long, releases feel risky, and the team spends more time wrestling with the codebase than delivering value.

The question is not whether you should address technical debt. The real question is how to integrate technical debt and refactoring work into Sprint Planning in a way that feels natural, predictable, and sustainable.

This guide walks through practical, real-world ways to bring technical debt and refactoring into Sprint Planning so they become part of your normal delivery rhythm instead of something the team keeps postponing.

Why Technical Debt Needs a Seat in Sprint Planning

Every product accumulates technical debt. Sometimes the team cuts a corner to hit a release date. Sometimes the architecture evolves faster than the codebase. Sometimes early decisions simply do not scale.

When this debt is not handled inside Sprint Planning, you see the symptoms very clearly:

New stories take longer to complete.
Bugs and regressions appear more often.
Developers avoid certain parts of the codebase because they feel “dangerous”.
Releases become unpredictable and stressful.
Velocity becomes noisy and unstable.

When technical debt is treated as normal work and integrated into Sprint Planning, the picture is completely different. You get:

More predictable delivery.
Cleaner, easier-to-maintain code.
Lower risk at release time.
More focused developers with less cognitive load.

If you have been through a structured program like SAFe Scrum Master Certification, you have already seen how unmanaged technical debt distorts flow metrics and weakens Sprint Planning. Addressing it during planning is not optional; it is essential.

Step 1: Treat Technical Debt as First-Class Backlog Work

One of the biggest mistakes teams make is treating technical debt as background noise. It gets talked about in passing, but it never shows up as structured work in the backlog.

To change that, treat technical debt as a first-class citizen:

Create dedicated backlog items for technical debt.
Write a clear description of what is wrong and why it matters.
Define acceptance criteria: what will be different once this debt is paid down?
Estimate complexity or effort just like any other story.
Describe the risk of leaving it unaddressed.

For example, instead of a vague note like “Refactor checkout module,” write something like:

Title: Refactor checkout service to reduce duplication and stabilize tests
Description: The checkout service has duplicated logic across three methods, causing constant bugs and slow fixes. Refactor into a single flow with clear test coverage.
Acceptance criteria: Single logic path, updated tests, no failing regression tests, reduced complexity.

Teams that apply structured backlog practices learned in programs such as SAFe Product Owner/Product Manager Certification Training are usually better at this. They see system health and technical integrity as part of product value, not something separate from it.

Step 2: Use Data to Make Technical Debt Visible and Prioritizable

Technical debt is much easier to ignore when it is only described with vague phrases like “the code is messy” or “this module is painful to work with.” To convince stakeholders and Product Owners to prioritize debt, you need data.

Useful data points include:

Lead time for changes in a specific area of the codebase.
Change frequency for files that are constantly modified.
Defect metrics showing repeated issues in certain components.
Complexity indicators such as cyclomatic complexity or high coupling.
Test suite signals like long-running tests or frequent flaky failures.

These indicators show that debt is not just a theoretical concept; it is directly affecting delivery speed and stability.

You can also rely on external references like Martin Fowler’s refactoring guidelines to explain the long-term cost of ignoring design problems. Combined with real team metrics, this creates a strong case for integrating refactoring into Sprint Planning.

Step 3: Decide How Much Sprint Capacity Goes to Technical Debt

One of the most common questions is: “How much of our sprint should we allocate to technical debt and refactoring?”

There is no single correct number, but there are several strategies you can use.

1. Capacity Allocation Model

In this approach, the team reserves a fixed percentage of capacity for technical debt and refactoring work each sprint. For many teams this ranges from 10% to 25%, depending on how much debt exists and how painful it has become.

This method is predictable. It ensures debt is addressed regularly without needing constant debates each sprint.

This mindset maps well to what you see in Leading SAFe Agilist Certification Training, where capacity allocation is used to balance business features with enablers and architectural work.

2. “Fix as You Build” Model

Here, refactoring and debt reduction are integrated directly into new work. Whenever the team touches an area of the codebase, they clean it up as part of delivering new features.

Examples:

Refactor duplicated logic as part of implementing a new story.
Extract reusable components while adding a new feature.
Improve test coverage while fixing a bug.

This method keeps the system improving continuously without requiring separate “refactoring releases.”

3. Priority-Driven Model

In this model, the team prioritizes technical debt when it directly affects delivery or risk. Debt items are treated like any other story and prioritized when:

The module slows down new feature delivery.
The system experiences repeated regression issues.
The code makes production issues harder to diagnose.

This is often a good approach in volatile environments where priorities change rapidly.

4. Dedicated Refactoring Sprints (Use Carefully)

Some teams occasionally schedule a full sprint focused almost entirely on refactoring and technical debt reduction. This can be useful when the system has reached a breaking point and normal incremental improvements are not enough.

However, relying on refactoring sprints as the primary strategy is risky. It encourages postponing debt, which is exactly the behavior you want to avoid.

Step 4: Bring Technical Debt into the Sprint Planning Conversation

Technical debt should not be an afterthought at the end of Sprint Planning. It should be a deliberate part of the conversation from the start.

During Sprint Planning, the team should:

Review high-priority technical debt items alongside business features.
Discuss how debt is affecting current and upcoming work.
Estimate debt items realistically rather than treating them as invisible extra effort.
Decide which debt items to include in the sprint, based on capacity and risk.

Developers play a crucial role here. They must explain in clear language how specific debt items are slowing the team down or increasing risk. This is where facilitation skills from programs like SAFe Advanced Scrum Master Certification Training become very valuable, because advanced Scrum Masters know how to bring technical and business perspectives into the same conversation.

Step 5: Tie Refactoring Work to Upcoming Features

One of the most effective ways to integrate refactoring into Sprint Planning is to link it directly with upcoming features.

For example:

If the team plans to implement new behavior in a messy module, they refactor the key parts of that module before or while adding the new feature.
If the team plans to expand an API, they clean up the existing endpoints to reduce duplication first.
If a part of the codebase is known to be fragile, they stabilize it before building additional logic on top of it.

This approach avoids the trap of “we’ll refactor later” and ensures that new work is built on stronger foundations.

On a larger scale, this kind of thinking aligns with guidance provided to leaders and facilitators in programs such as the SAFe Release Train Engineer Certification Training, where architectural runway and system integrity are treated as key enablers of predictable delivery.

Step 6: Use the Definition of Done to Encourage Sustainable Refactoring

The team’s Definition of Done (DoD) is a powerful lever. If the DoD only focuses on “feature works as expected,” then technical quality will always be at risk.

To encourage sustainable refactoring, teams can update their DoD to include items such as:

No duplicated logic introduced by the change.
Code follows agreed coding standards and patterns.
Unit and integration tests updated and passing.
No new critical technical debt knowingly added.
Refactoring performed where the code structure clearly blocked clean implementation.

Over time, this builds a habit: developers expect to refactor when necessary, not only when they have spare time.

Scrum Masters who have practiced and studied through frameworks like SAFe Scrum Master Certification often champion this evolution of the Definition of Done, because it directly supports long-term agility.

Step 7: Make Technical Debt Visible to Stakeholders

Stakeholders are not against technical debt reduction. Most of the time, they simply do not see its impact clearly.

To get their support, make technical debt visible using:

Technical debt backlog grouped by module or domain.
Trend charts showing how long it takes to deliver changes in certain areas.
Bug and incident patterns tied to messy or outdated code paths.
Flow metrics that correlate delays with complex or fragile components.

When stakeholders see that refactoring a specific service led to fewer incidents, faster delivery, or more predictable sprints, their view of technical debt changes from “nice-to-have” to “essential work.”

At scale, leaders who understand systemic health, often through programs like Leading SAFe Agilist Certification Training, are more inclined to support this kind of work because they see the impact on flow across the whole value stream.

Step 8: Recognize Refactoring as an Enabler of Innovation

Refactoring is not just about making code cleaner. It is about unlocking future possibilities.

Well-executed refactoring enables:

Faster experimentation and A/B testing.
Easier integration with new platforms or services.
Simpler feature toggling and gradual rollouts.
Reduced risk of outages when making changes.
Better performance and scalability.

Innovation becomes easier when the system is easy to change. Teams that refuse to address technical debt often find themselves stuck: ideas are there, but the system cannot adapt quickly enough.

Some organizations study external material such as Google’s engineering productivity research and realize that code health and refactoring directly impact innovation speed. That insight translates into stronger support for technical debt reduction inside Sprint Planning.

Step 9: Measure the Impact of Technical Debt and Refactoring Over Time

If you want lasting support for integrating technical debt into Sprint Planning, you need to show progress over time.

Helpful indicators include:

Reduction in the average time to complete stories in heavily refactored areas.
Fewer production incidents or Sev-1/Sev-2 issues in previously fragile modules.
More stable velocity once the worst debt hotspots are addressed.
Lower rework percentage (fewer “fix the fix” stories).
Improved developer satisfaction scores or feedback in retrospectives.

Share these outcomes in Sprint Reviews and retrospectives. When stakeholders and leaders see that refactoring leads to smoother delivery and better outcomes, they are much more willing to keep allocating capacity to technical debt work.

This kind of system-level thinking is reinforced in advanced facilitation and leadership programs such as SAFe Advanced Scrum Master Certification Training, which emphasize coaching teams and stakeholders around sustainable ways of working.

Step 10: Build a Culture of Sustainable Development

Processes and tools help, but long-term success depends on culture. A team that truly integrates technical debt and refactoring into Sprint Planning usually shares these beliefs:

Delivering value quickly is important, but not at the cost of breaking the system.
Code quality is a shared responsibility, not just a “developer concern.”
Product Owners care about speed and stability, not just features.
Scrum Masters protect sustainable pace and healthy technical practices.
Leaders support system health as much as they support new features.

Over time, this mindset turns refactoring from a “special event” into a normal part of how the team works. Technical debt is never fully eliminated, but it is actively managed and rarely allowed to become crippling.

Training programs such as the SAFe Scrum Master Certification and SAFe Advanced Scrum Master Certification Training help Scrum Masters and coaches embed this culture by aligning teams, Product Owners, and leaders around sustainable agility.

Bringing It All Together in Sprint Planning

Integrating technical debt and refactoring work into Sprint Planning is not about saying “no” to feature requests. It is about protecting the team’s ability to continue delivering value over time.

To summarise:

Treat technical debt as visible, estimable backlog work.
Use metrics and real data to support prioritization.
Allocate clear capacity for refactoring and debt reduction.
Tie refactoring directly to upcoming features and changes.
Strengthen your Definition of Done to prevent new debt from creeping in.
Make technical debt visible and understandable to stakeholders.
Measure improvement and share the impact regularly.

If your team constantly struggles with missed commitments, frequent production issues, or unstable velocity, there is a good chance technical debt is at the root of it. Bringing technical debt and refactoring into Sprint Planning is one of the most effective ways to regain control of your delivery flow and build a product that can grow without falling apart.

For teams and leaders who want to go deeper into scaling these practices across programs and Agile Release Trains, certifications like Leading SAFe Agilist Certification Training, SAFe Product Owner/Product Manager Certification, SAFe Scrum Master Certification, SAFe Advanced Scrum Master Certification Training, and SAFe Release Train Engineer Certification Training provide structured guidance on how to embed this thinking across the whole organization.

Also read - How Cross-Functional Collaboration Shapes Better Sprint Plans

Also see - How well written acceptance criteria speed up Sprint Planning