Blame the Bosses: The Documentation Dilemma in Code Development
In the realm of enterprise IT, a common lament echoes through the corridors of tech departments worldwide: the dearth of documentation, particularly for legacy systems’ custom code, introduces unnecessary complexity and risk into operations. However, the root cause of this documentation deficit often remains unexplored, with a significant portion of the blame resting on the shoulders of IT managers who oversaw the initial coding endeavors that lacked proper documentation.
Developers, inherently averse to documenting their code, cite various reasons for this aversion. Firstly, documenting code is perceived as the drudgery that follows the creative high of coding, dampening the enthusiasm of developers eager to dive into new projects. Secondly, there’s a self-preservation element at play; undocumented code can serve as job security, deterring managers from letting go of developers due to the critical knowledge they possess. Moreover, departed developers can capitalize on the lack of documentation by offering lucrative consulting services to untangle the code they left behind.
The issue of inadequate documentation not only mirrors the challenges of generative AI testing but also underscores the disconnect between senior management and frontline developers. Just as CEOs espousing genAI to streamline operations contradictorily task developers with testing these technologies, IT managers often push developers to document their code while simultaneously prioritizing swift project turnovers over meticulous documentation.
To address this pervasive problem, a nuanced approach is necessary, recognizing the distinct challenges posed by legacy code, current projects, and the availability of original developers. While leveraging genAI coding assistants may seem like a plausible solution, the inherent resistance of developers to extensive documentation creation complicates this path. Managers, eager to propel projects forward, often overlook the long-term benefits of comprehensive documentation in favor of immediate deliverables.
Adam Resnick, a research manager at IDC, highlights the repercussions of poor documentation on enterprise IT, emphasizing its detrimental impact on system modernization, security audits, bug resolution, and maintenance. Resnick underscores the prevailing issue of skewed IT priorities, where developers are incentivized based on output rather than documentation quality, perpetuating the cycle of inadequate documentation practices.
In navigating this documentation dilemma, Resnick advocates for incentivizing developers to prioritize documentation by tying substantial bonuses to thorough documentation efforts. By aligning incentives with documentation goals, organizations can foster a culture that values comprehensive documentation as a cornerstone of sustainable code development practices.
Ultimately, the onus lies on IT leaders to recalibrate their priorities, recognizing the intrinsic value of meticulous documentation in ensuring the longevity and resilience of codebases. By bridging the gap between developer reluctance and managerial oversight, organizations can pave the way for a more robust and sustainable approach to code documentation, safeguarding against the pitfalls of undocumented code in an ever-evolving digital landscape.