I'd argue that there's definitely a business case for frequent and early refactoring - it just needs to be refactoring worth doing in the first place. IMHE a most code gets touched rarely, and some parts get touched all the time, so refactoring needs to be strategic if it's going to have any utility.
This also argues for ongoing refactoring - addressing pain points as they arise, while they are fresh in people's minds, rather than suffering through them until Stockholm Syndrome sets in, people can no longer see the forest for the trees, and much of the velocity refactoring would provide is lost because the subsequent work is already done.
But the biggest issue I've seen with not handling tech debt on an ongoing basis is that there's never a good time to start. So if it's not built into the development cadence, then resistance builds for doing it at all. Product starts pointing fingers at "slow" engineering, who point back at the "breakneck" demand for feature work, and negotiations start for unrealistic (for both sides) halts in feature work - neither sufficient to resolve the problems nor short enough to avoid hurting the business.
Then product breathes a sigh of relief - the tech debt is "resolved" and will never need to be addressed again, engineering returns to wading through a codebase that is only marginally less swampy than it was before the cursory refactoring sprint, and the downward spiral (and finger pointing) resumes.
At least that's how it always seems to happen around me :)
As far as tests, IMHO refactoring without them (with BDD style tests being greatly preferable) is fraught with peril. But unless the team is bought in on BDD tests and using them to guide development, I agree they are a time sink to write them early. However, writing them later (and around code that might have been touched by multiple hands) rather than maintaining them is flavor of pain - like the refactoring, it's harder to be sure they won't miss things and you'll break something.
I think it goes back to experience. If everyone involved has suffered at least once, they’ll be keen to spot issues before they cause pain. both developers and managers.
So therefore my current reasoning is this sort of thing can’t be taught or explained /shrug.
I’m currently on a quest to teach/explain this now, so depending on how that goes I may change my mind, but i’m not holding my breath
This also argues for ongoing refactoring - addressing pain points as they arise, while they are fresh in people's minds, rather than suffering through them until Stockholm Syndrome sets in, people can no longer see the forest for the trees, and much of the velocity refactoring would provide is lost because the subsequent work is already done.
But the biggest issue I've seen with not handling tech debt on an ongoing basis is that there's never a good time to start. So if it's not built into the development cadence, then resistance builds for doing it at all. Product starts pointing fingers at "slow" engineering, who point back at the "breakneck" demand for feature work, and negotiations start for unrealistic (for both sides) halts in feature work - neither sufficient to resolve the problems nor short enough to avoid hurting the business.
Then product breathes a sigh of relief - the tech debt is "resolved" and will never need to be addressed again, engineering returns to wading through a codebase that is only marginally less swampy than it was before the cursory refactoring sprint, and the downward spiral (and finger pointing) resumes.
At least that's how it always seems to happen around me :)
As far as tests, IMHO refactoring without them (with BDD style tests being greatly preferable) is fraught with peril. But unless the team is bought in on BDD tests and using them to guide development, I agree they are a time sink to write them early. However, writing them later (and around code that might have been touched by multiple hands) rather than maintaining them is flavor of pain - like the refactoring, it's harder to be sure they won't miss things and you'll break something.