Technical debt builds up when short-term delivery takes precedence over long-term code quality. In a SAFe® environment, where multiple Agile teams work toward common goals, letting technical debt accumulate unchecked can derail system-level progress. Program Increment (PI) Planning, however, provides a strategic window to identify, track, and plan for both technical debt and necessary refactoring work.

This post explores how to use PI Planning outputs to track and prioritize technical debt and ensure it's visible, actionable, and integrated into the product roadmap.

Why Technical Debt Matters in SAFe

Technical debt is not just about messy code—it represents anything that slows down delivery, introduces risk, or increases maintenance effort. Examples include hardcoded configurations, lack of test automation, legacy architecture, and brittle integrations.

Left unmanaged, this debt compounds and inhibits business agility. The Architectural Runway in SAFe relies on a sustainable technical foundation, which makes addressing debt critical for future feature development. That’s why SAFe Product Owner/Product Manager certification emphasizes the balance between business features and enablers that reduce technical debt.

PI Planning: A Key Touchpoint for Visibility

PI Planning is the right time to bring technical debt into the light. Product Owners, System Architects, and Agile Teams collaborate to identify backlog items that aren’t just new features but also include:

• Refactoring tasks
• Testing automation initiatives
• Infrastructure upgrades
• API standardization or modularization

When teams align on upcoming priorities, these technical enablers can be properly sized, scheduled, and prioritized using methods like WSJF (Weighted Shortest Job First).

Mapping Technical Debt to Backlog Items

Technical debt shouldn’t be managed through hidden notes or side chats. It must be tracked the same way features are—through visible and structured backlog items.

During PI Planning, teams should:

• Create enabler stories that capture technical debt
• Use spikes to explore unknowns related to legacy code or risky refactors
• Link these stories to capabilities or features they impact
• Tag items as "debt" in the Agile tool (like Jira, Rally, or VersionOne)

This keeps technical work aligned with the rest of the delivery pipeline. It also makes it easier to justify effort to stakeholders who may be focused on customer-facing features.

Prioritizing Refactoring Efforts

Not all technical debt is equal. Some code smells are tolerable; others block key architectural changes or delay critical features. SAFe recommends using the WSJF method to prioritize enabler stories that address high-impact debt.

Ask questions like:

• Does this debt affect multiple ARTs?
• Is it increasing support costs or production incidents?
• Is it preventing delivery of committed PI Objectives?

Technical leaders and architects should also feed this insight back into the SAFe POPM training pipeline to educate Product Owners on the business impact of ignoring tech debt.

Use of Metrics for Debt Tracking

To track progress on refactoring and tech debt management, consider integrating metrics into PI Planning reviews and ART syncs. Useful measures include:

• Code complexity metrics (Cyclomatic complexity, duplication)
• Automated test coverage percentage
• Mean time to resolve defects in legacy components
• Number of refactor stories completed per PI

These metrics help justify continued investment in enabler work during Inspect & Adapt sessions.

System Demo as a Validation Mechanism

Every PI ends with a System Demo. Use this opportunity to showcase the results of technical enablers and refactoring tasks, not just business features.

This can include:

• Before-and-after performance benchmarks
• Reduced deployment times
• Improved scalability or maintainability

Visible demonstrations strengthen stakeholder support and encourage Product Managers to continue prioritizing this work. It aligns with the principles covered in SAFe Product Owner Certification.

Cross-Team Coordination

Technical debt often spans multiple teams or ARTs. Refactoring efforts tied to architectural layers, shared services, or integration points require cross-team planning. Use the Architectural Runway and Solution Train roles to:

• Align debt-related enablers across trains
• Assign ownership for shared components
• Track dependencies in the Program Board

This collaborative model ensures systemic issues are not owned in isolation and that the work fits into PI Objectives at scale.

Linking Enablers to Strategic Outcomes

One of the biggest risks with technical work is the perception that it doesn't deliver business value. By tying refactoring initiatives to Strategic Themes or OKRs, teams can showcase how reducing debt accelerates delivery and reduces time-to-market over time.

This approach is embedded within SAFe's guidance and further reinforced through the SAFe Product Owner/Manager certification curriculum, which trains professionals to balance feature velocity with technical sustainability.

Best Practices for Success

• Involve architects early in PI Planning to surface system-level tech debt
• Track enabler stories with the same rigor as feature stories
• Use clear acceptance criteria for refactoring tasks
• Show measurable benefits in System Demos and I&A sessions
• Educate business stakeholders on the risks of deferring technical work

Conclusion

Technical debt is inevitable—but unmanaged debt is dangerous. SAFe provides the structure, and PI Planning provides the moment, to ensure that technical refactoring efforts are prioritized alongside business features. By capturing this work as visible backlog items, aligning with strategic outcomes, and demonstrating measurable impact, Agile teams can continuously improve their systems while maintaining delivery speed.

Whether you're already practicing SAFe or starting to explore it, becoming a certified SAFe POPM professional can help you make informed trade-offs between delivery speed and technical health.

 

Also read - Working with Release Management to Optimize Fixed-Date Releases

Also see - Structuring Pre-PI Exploration for Cross-Team Technical Alignment