MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rethinking Technical Debt: A Strategic Tool for New Venture Creation in the XaaS Era

2025· article· en· W4416000167 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Source Software Innovations
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPremiseSalientTechnical debtDebtBalance (ability)MetaphorDependency (UML)Relevance (law)Core (optical fiber)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technical debt (TD) has become an increasingly nuanced concept in entrepreneurship, particularly in the era of Everything-as-a-Service (XaaS). Initially introduced as a metaphor to describe the trade-offs in software development when shortcuts are taken for immediate gains at the expense of long-term maintainability, the concept has since evolved to encompass broader contexts, including digital infrastructure design and management. Its core premise of making visible the balance between short-term benefits with long-term costs has significant importance with the resource-constrained decision-making often observed in new venture creation. This study empirically examines the emerging types and sub-dimensions of TD encountered by startups in the XaaS context. Our findings identify dependency debt and integration debt as two salient forms of TD in this era. Additionally, we uncover two emerging entrepreneurial practices—microsourcing and surface innovation—that illustrate how XaaS is reshaping entrepreneurship. We conclude by emphasizing the growing role of TD as a strategic tool for driving new venture creation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it