Stakeholder Criteria in Technical Debt Decision-Making: A Practitioner-Informed Taxonomy

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.20935v1
• Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2026 20:54:10 GMT
• Title: Stakeholder Criteria in Technical Debt Decision-Making: A Practitioner-Informed Taxonomy
• Abstract summary: This paper proposes a practitioner-informed taxonomy represented as a conceptual model of stakeholder criteria for Technical Debt decision-making.<n>Based on a qualitative study with 11 software practitioners in Brazil, we extracted, consolidated, and organized criteria related to TD acquisition and repayment.<n>Our findings show that acquisition and repayment share taxonomic families but differ in decision function.
• Score: 0.24554686192257422
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Technical Debt (TD) decisions are rarely just technical. Stakeholders consider heterogeneous criteria, such as deadlines, client expectations, architectural consequences, available resources, organizational authority, and team sustainability, when deciding whether to acquire, postpone, prioritize, or repay TD. However, these criteria are often reported under different labels and at different levels of abstraction, making it difficult to compare findings across TD decision contexts. This paper proposes a practitioner-informed taxonomy represented as a conceptual model of stakeholder criteria for TD decision-making. Based on a qualitative study with 11 software practitioners in Brazil, we extracted, consolidated, and organized criteria related to TD acquisition and repayment. The resulting taxonomy comprises six families: stakeholder-facing value; delivery and resource pressure; technical integrity and systemic risk; decision basis and epistemic style; governance and legitimation; and human and team sustainability. Our findings show that acquisition and repayment share taxonomic families but differ in decision function. In acquisition, criteria often operate as permission mechanisms that make shortcuts acceptable under current constraints. In repayment, criteria operate as authorization mechanisms that justify allocating time and resources to address existing debt. The conceptual model further shows how criteria become actionable through stakeholder interpretation, translation across technical and business perspectives, and organizational legitimation. The taxonomy and model provide an empirically grounded artifact for classifying TD decision criteria, comparing decision contexts, and structuring discussions about TD acquisition and repayment.

Related papers

• A Mathematical Framework for Legacy, Governance, and Decision Integrity in Enterprise AI [0.0]
  This paper develops a design-science framework for institutional legacy.<n>It contributes: (i) a normalized Legacy Score based on a penalized geometric mean of knowledge retention, governance, human oversight, adaptability, feedback learning, and jurisdictional fidelity.<n>It also proposes eight AI Decision Integrity Rules, an evaluation protocol, and a reproducible computational demonstration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-01T02:06:32Z)
• Selective Ensemble Based on Preference-Directed Multi-Objective Bandits [90.75513823660775]
  We formalize a sequential decision problem under partially specified linear preferences.<n>We then propose a preference-directed upper confidence bound (PrefUCB) algorithm.<n> Experiments on large pre-trained model selective ensemble tasks and online asset allocation under institutional mandates validate our method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-20T07:52:46Z)
• Definitional alignment before capability alignment: a Design-Science framework for adjudicating claims about AGI [0.0]
  "AGI" lacks a single shared and stable referent and competing operationalizations can return different verdicts on the same system.<n>This article treats that under-specification as a design and governance problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-10T22:04:56Z)
• Is your AI Model Accurate Enough? The Difficult Choices Behind Rigorous AI Development and the EU AI Act [11.9330079062021]
  The 2024 European Union AI Act mandates an "appropriate level of accuracy" for high-risk systems.<n>This paper provides a legal-technical analysis of the choices that shape how accuracy is defined, measured, and assessed.<n>By making the techno-normative dimensions of accuracy explicit, this paper contributes to broader interdisciplinary debates on AI governance and regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T15:51:37Z)
• Generative AI in Managerial Decision-Making: Redefining Boundaries through Ambiguity Resolution and Sycophancy Analysis [0.45880283710344055]
  This study compares various models on ambiguity detection, evaluating how a systematic resolution process enhances response quality.<n>Using a novel four-dimensional business ambiguity taxonomy, we conducted a human-in-the-loop experiment across strategic, tactical, and operational scenarios.<n>Results reveal distinct performance capabilities. While models excel in detecting internal contradictions and contextual ambiguities, they struggle with structural linguistic nuances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-04T12:10:56Z)
• Standards for trustworthy AI in the European Union: technical rationale, structural challenges, and an implementation path [0.0]
  This white paper examines the technical foundations of European AI standardization under the AI Act.<n>It explains how harmonized standards enable the presumption of conformity mechanism, describes the CEN/CENELEC standardization process, and analyzes why AI poses unique challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T11:58:47Z)
• Multi-Crit: Benchmarking Multimodal Judges on Pluralistic Criteria-Following [99.20581206115979]
  Multi-Crit is a benchmark for evaluating multimodal judges on their capacity to follow pluralistic criteria and produce reliable criterion-level judgments.<n> Comprehensive analysis of 25 LMMs reveals that 1) proprietary models still struggle to maintain consistent adherence to pluralistic criteria--especially in open-ended evaluation; 2) open-source models lag further behind in flexibly following diverse criteria; and 3) critic fine-tuning with holistic judgment signals enhances visual grounding but fails to generalize to pluralistic criterion-level judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-26T18:35:17Z)
• ABI Approach: Automatic Bias Identification in Decision-Making Under Risk based in an Ontology of Behavioral Economics [46.57327530703435]
  Risk seeking preferences for losses, driven by biases such as loss aversion, pose challenges and can result in severe negative consequences. This research introduces the ABI approach, a novel solution designed to support organizational decision-makers by automatically identifying and explaining risk seeking preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-22T23:53:46Z)
• Trustworthy AI: Deciding What to Decide [41.10597843436572]
  We propose a novel framework of Trustworthy AI (TAI) encompassing crucial components of AI. We aim to use this framework to conduct the TAI experiments by quantitive and qualitative research methods. We formulate an optimal prediction model for applying the strategic investment decision of credit default swaps (CDS) in the technology sector.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-21T13:43:58Z)
• NLP-based Decision Support System for Examination of Eligibility Criteria from Securities Prospectuses at the German Central Bank [0.0]
  The German Central Bank receives hundreds of scanned prospectuses in PDF format, which must be manually processed to decide upon their eligibility. We found that this tedious and time-consuming process can be (semi-automated) by employing modern NLP model architectures. The proposed Decision Support System provides decisions of document-level eligibility criteria accompanied by human-understandable explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-09T11:00:58Z)
• Causal Fairness Analysis [68.12191782657437]
  We introduce a framework for understanding, modeling, and possibly solving issues of fairness in decision-making settings. The main insight of our approach will be to link the quantification of the disparities present on the observed data with the underlying, and often unobserved, collection of causal mechanisms. Our effort culminates in the Fairness Map, which is the first systematic attempt to organize and explain the relationship between different criteria found in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-23T01:06:34Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)
• "A cold, technical decision-maker": Can AI provide explainability, negotiability, and humanity? [47.36687555570123]
  We present results of a qualitative study of algorithmic decision-making, comprised of five workshops conducted with a total of 60 participants. We discuss participants' consideration of humanity in decision-making, and introduce the concept of 'negotiability,' the ability to go beyond formal criteria and work flexibly around the system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-01T22:36:54Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.