I think framing it as tech investment makes it easier for management to see it as a trade off with features. Features show the manager's work, "tech investment" by itself doesn't, so the moment there's any tension between the two, feature work will win.
The important thing is to have a way to show the value of doing that work.
Call it debt, wealth, or whatever. But, measure some KPIs, establish a tech debt/wealth workplan with predicted goals, execute, measure again, and use it as proof. The fight for buy-in to continue incorporating that work in the schedules and plans.
The alternative is creating the work standard of having "20% of your time can go to anything you think needs fixing, no questions asked. Above that, ask first." Just like Code Reviews are no longer seen as skippable (ahem well mostly). That 20% is ALWAYS on, regardless of any deadlines, planned work, be it features, training or peer reviews.
The important thing is to have a way to show the value of doing that work.
Call it debt, wealth, or whatever. But, measure some KPIs, establish a tech debt/wealth workplan with predicted goals, execute, measure again, and use it as proof. The fight for buy-in to continue incorporating that work in the schedules and plans.
The alternative is creating the work standard of having "20% of your time can go to anything you think needs fixing, no questions asked. Above that, ask first." Just like Code Reviews are no longer seen as skippable (ahem well mostly). That 20% is ALWAYS on, regardless of any deadlines, planned work, be it features, training or peer reviews.