The Broken Windows Theory in Software Development: Why You Must Fix Everything, Now

The Broken Windows Theory, originating in criminology, suggests that visible signs of disorder—such as broken windows in a building—lead to further neglect and decay. If one broken window is left unrepaired, soon others will follow, and the entire area will degrade. In software development, the same principle applies: if small problems like code smells or bad processes are ignored, they snowball into larger issues that become significantly harder to fix.

However, there is a dangerous tendency in development teams to assess the urgency of an issue based on how many users it affects or how critical it is to functionality. This is a fundamental mistake. The real impact of ignoring issues is not on users or cost—it is on the mindset of developers and the culture of the team.

The Real Cost of Ignoring Small Issues

A broken window in software isn’t just a minor inconvenience—it changes how developers think about quality. When small issues are ignored, developers begin to internalize a dangerous lesson: "bugs are normal," "sloppy code is acceptable," and "no one really cares about quality." This shift in mindset is far more damaging than any individual bug.

Why This Matters More Than Cost or User Impact

• Eroding Developer Standards – When developers see that code smells and small bugs are tolerated, they begin lowering their own standards. Over time, the entire team’s perception of quality deteriorates.
• Compounding Technical Debt – The moment you decide an issue is "not urgent," you begin accumulating debt that will cost exponentially more to fix later.
• Loss of Code Ownership – When problems are routinely deprioritized, developers lose pride in their work and start seeing the codebase as a decaying structure rather than something worth maintaining.
• Cultural Decay – Just like an unmaintained building invites further vandalism, a neglected codebase invites more negligence. Small problems turn into systemic issues, and soon, no one feels responsible for keeping the system clean.

The Broken Windows of Software Development

The analogy of broken windows applies perfectly to software development. Just like in a neighborhood where a single broken window invites more destruction, small problems in code create an environment where more problems are likely to arise.

Consider these examples:

• Inconsistent Formatting – Just as graffiti on a wall invites more graffiti, unformatted or inconsistent code encourages others to ignore style guides.
• Unaddressed Code Smells – Similar to a cracked sidewalk leading to further disrepair, messy, overly complex functions lead to even worse additions over time.
• Unreviewed Pull Requests – Like abandoned buildings that attract squatters, PRs that sit for weeks without review send the message that speed and quality don't matter.
• Commented-Out Code – Just like trash left on a street attracts more trash, keeping dead code in the repo signals that clutter is acceptable.
• Manually Executed Processes – As with broken infrastructure in a city, inefficient manual processes slow down progress and create frustration, leading to more workarounds and shortcuts.

No Issue is Too Small to Fix

It’s common to hear, "this bug affects no users, so we’ll fix it later." But the question isn't about users—it's about the team's standards and how they approach their work.

• If a developer sees an issue go unfixed, they assume it’s acceptable to leave other issues unfixed.
• If a team tolerates minor errors, they will eventually tolerate major ones.
• If a bug sits in the backlog for months, it becomes part of the system’s DNA and is rarely addressed.

Why "Fix Later" is a Lie

One of the most dangerous phrases in software development is “we’ll fix it later.” It almost always means “we will never fix it.” The idea that a team will go back and clean up minor issues after shipping new features is wishful thinking. By the time "later" arrives, priorities have shifted, the backlog has grown, and that small issue has been forgotten—or worse, it has multiplied.

The "Fix Everything Now" Mindset

Instead of classifying issues by their immediate user impact, teams should adopt a mindset where every problem is a priority because its true cost is in how it shapes developer behavior.

How to Enforce This:

• Never push code with known issues, no matter how small.
• Refuse to accept "low-priority bugs." All bugs are priority bugs.
• Do not allow issues to pile up in the backlog. Fix them at the moment they are discovered.
• Hold developers accountable for fixing what they break. If an issue is found in code someone wrote, they should be responsible for correcting it immediately.
• Be prepared for an initial slowdown.

Transitioning to This Philosophy

If a team has historically allowed broken windows to persist, suddenly enforcing a "fix everything now" approach will feel like a massive shift. Things that used to take a small amount of time will now take longer due to necessary refactors and higher quality standards. This transition phase is critical and must be handled carefully to prevent frustration and pushback.

Expect and Accept an Adjustment Period

At first, development speed will slow down. Fixing longstanding issues and refactoring code that was previously ignored will take time. This is not wasted time; it’s an investment. Teams must acknowledge that while progress may seem slower, the long-term benefits far outweigh the short-term delays.

Shift Mindsets Gradually

• Begin by enforcing the rule on new code. Every new feature must meet higher quality standards.
• Introduce dedicated cleanup sprints to address existing issues systematically.
• Make it clear that quality is now a core engineering principle, not an optional step.

Leadership Buy-In is Essential

This transition cannot succeed unless leadership supports it. If management still pushes for unrealistic deadlines while ignoring quality, developers will feel pressured to cut corners. Leadership must reinforce that fixing issues now is a strategic decision, not an inconvenience.

Early-Stage Startups: The Most Crucial Time for This Philosophy

Once a startup decides to move beyond the POC and build a real product, this is the most crucial moment for enforcing a zero-tolerance policy on broken windows. This is when:

• The core team culture is formed.
• Development habits are solidified.
• The product’s foundation is laid down.

If a startup begins its real product development with a culture that tolerates sloppy work, that attitude will persist and become impossible to change later. This is why early-stage startups must be aggressive in fixing every issue, even when the number of affected users is zero.

Conclusion: No Broken Windows, Ever

There is no such thing as a low-impact bug. The moment an issue is discovered, it must be fixed—not because of its effect on users, but because of its effect on the team.

The best developers don’t just write code—they maintain a culture of zero tolerance for broken windows. The only way to move fast is to never let problems accumulate in the first place. A clean codebase doesn’t just improve performance—it defines the mindset of the team that builds it.