As engineering leaders, we’re often faced with a familiar crossroads: the codebase is showing its age, new features are harder to ship, and technical debt is piling up. The question inevitably arises—should we refactor, or should we rewrite?
The idea of a clean slate can be appealing. Starting from scratch sounds like freedom from the past. But as leaders, it’s our responsibility to think beyond the code and consider the broader impact—on timelines, team morale, product velocity, and business continuity.
Let’s explore both paths with the strategic lens leadership demands.
Refactoring: Evolving What Works
Refactoring is about improving the structure of the code without changing its behavior. It’s incremental, continuous, and safe. Think of it as upgrading the plumbing in a functioning building—you get immediate benefits without shutting the whole operation down.
For engineering teams, refactoring allows:
- Steady delivery: Your team can ship improvements while the system remains usable.
- Knowledge retention: You’re building on years of domain context.
- Lower risk: Fewer regressions, faster testing, and fewer surprises.
Most importantly, every small win delivers value immediately. You fix a naming convention, extract a service, or simplify a function—and the system is better for it that same day.
Rewriting: The High-Risk, High-Cost Option
Rewriting is exactly what it sounds like—starting from scratch. While it promises a pristine architecture and modern tech stack, rewrites defer all value until the very end. Nothing ships until everything’s ready.
That means:
- Delayed ROI: You don’t benefit until the rewrite is complete. Rewrites take, on average, 2–3x longer than initially estimated (McKinsey Digital, 2021).
- Business risk: Your current system stagnates while the team focuses on the new one.
- Increased bug rates: New systems reintroduce old bugs or create new ones. Teams often see 15–25% higher initial defect density in rewritten systems.
- Team pressure: Rewrites often burn out teams and stall innovation. Morale drops when progress is invisible. One internal survey at a major SaaS company found a 23% increase in dev attrition during an 18-month rewrite project.
And the kicker? A classic adage in software holds true:
“You’re never just rewriting the code—you’re also rewriting every bug, edge case, and undocumented decision made over years.”
If you’re considering a rewrite, be brutally honest about your motivations. If your answer is:
- “This code isn’t written well.”
- “I can do a much better job.”
- “I don’t understand why it’s built this way.”
- “I want to build it my way.”
- “I want to create my legacy.”
— then you’re not making a strategic decision. You’re reacting emotionally.
When Is a Rewrite Justified?
There are scenarios where a rewrite is the right choice: when the architecture is fundamentally flawed, the tech stack is obsolete, or the product’s direction has shifted so drastically that the old system no longer fits.
Even then, the decision should be backed by:
- A clear cost-benefit analysis
- A realistic delivery timeline
- A plan to mitigate downtime and knowledge loss
- A strong business case supported by stakeholders
Without these, a rewrite is a gamble—one that too often ends in missed deadlines, frustrated teams, and technical debt in a different flavor.
The Leadership Perspective
As an engineering leader, your role isn’t to chase technical perfection—it’s to enable sustainable, high-impact progress. Refactoring supports that goal by allowing your team to move fast without breaking things. It gives you a path to improve the system while continuing to deliver value to the business.
Rewriting might feel like bold leadership, but unless it’s backed by data and driven by necessity, it’s often just risky.
Choose evolution over revolution—most of the time, it’s the smarter, more resilient path forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment