Skip to main content
Back

Tech Debt Is Frustrating. Data Debt Is Existential.

February 03, 2026
Most teams understand tech debt.
It’s the cost of shortcuts in your systems.
You move fast.
You ship imperfect code or workflows.
You promise you’ll clean it up later.
It compounds. It can slow you down. It can create headaches for engineering.
But it rarely stops you from answering basic questions about your business.
Data debt is different.
Data debt is the cost of shortcuts in how information is captured, connected, and understood.
And unlike tech debt, the interest rate is brutal.

How Data Debt Shows Up

It usually starts the same way.
An executive asks what sounds like a simple question:
“What’s our churn?”
And then… silence.
The data team disappears for weeks.
Definitions get debated.
Dashboards don’t match.
Different teams pull different numbers.
By the time there’s an answer:
  • It’s already outdated
  • No one fully trusts it
  • The business has moved on
The issue isn’t intelligence.
It isn’t effort.
It’s that the business evolved — and the data layer never caught up.

Why This Is More Dangerous in the AI Era

In the AI age, this becomes especially risky.
Churn and stickiness matter more than ever. Retention is leverage. Understanding customer behavior is a competitive advantage.
But if you’re buried in data debt, you can’t answer why customers are leaving until a meaningful chunk of them are already gone.
By the time the data is clean enough to analyze, the damage is done.
I’ve seen fast-growing companies learn this the hard way.
Revenue was climbing.
Headcount was expanding.
Momentum felt strong.
But underneath it all was a widening gap between what was happening in reality and what their systems could reliably explain.
Data debt feels like this:
“Why can’t I get an answer to a simple question?”
And the uncomfortable truth is:
Your business stopped being simple a long time ago.
Your data just never evolved with it.

The False Choice: Speed vs. Accuracy

When teams finally feel the pain, they often swing hard in the opposite direction.
  • “Let’s clean everything.”
  • “Let’s centralize first.”
  • “Let’s rebuild the data model.”
  • “Let’s get it perfect before we move.”
That creates a different kind of paralysis.
You slow down to protect accuracy.
Decisions take longer.
Teams wait for certainty that never fully arrives.
Now you’re stuck choosing between:
a) moving fast with bad data
or
b) moving slow with clean data
It sounds responsible.
But I think it’s a false choice.

A Different Model: Data as a Living System

The real shift isn’t choosing speed or cleanliness.
It’s treating data as a living system of human record.
Humans should focus on doing the work — selling, building, supporting, operating. Having real conversations. Making real decisions.
Agents handle the rest.
They:
  • Document where information lives
  • Connect scattered systems
  • Clean continuously
  • Reconcile inconsistencies
  • Preserve context in the background
Not through quarterly cleanup projects.
Not through massive migrations.
Not through endless dashboard debates.
Continuously.
In that world, data debt stops being something you obsess over.
You don’t eliminate it manually.
You effectively default on it — without consequences — because the system arbitrates the mess in real time.

Where This Is Headed

That’s a bold claim.
Some will argue that foundational cleanup always comes first. That you have to fix the pipes before turning on automation.
But as businesses grow more complex, manual data hygiene simply won’t scale.
The companies that win won’t be the ones with the cleanest static dashboards.
They’ll be the ones whose systems can keep up with reality as it changes.
The real question isn’t:
How do we eliminate data debt?
It’s:
How do we build systems that prevent it from compounding in the first place?
Curious how others are thinking about this tradeoff — data debt vs. speed vs. certainty — especially if you’ve felt this pain firsthand

Related articles

All articles