Core Idea
Incrementalists and Completionists are two opposing orientations toward progress — satisficers who ship at “good enough” versus maximisers who solve it right — both necessary in a healthy team but pathological when one type manages the other without awareness of the difference.
Lopp’s Incrementalist/Completionist dichotomy identifies two distinct personality orientations toward progress that coexist — and frequently conflict — in software teams.
Incrementalists
- Core orientation: Satisficer — sets a “good enough to ship” threshold and stops when met
- Strengths: Speed, momentum, pragmatism; keeps teams shipping
- Failure modes: Accumulates technical debt; builds local optima that resist later structural improvement
- Mantra: “Ship it. We’ll fix it later.”
Completionists
- Core orientation: Maximizer — cannot commit until the solution approaches its theoretically optimal form
- Strengths: Long-range vision; sees the two-year and five-year solution; prevents structural debt from compounding
- Failure modes: Delivery failure and paralysis; the ideal becomes the enemy of the shipped
- Mantra: “If we’re solving this, solve it right.”
Why Both Are Necessary
A healthy team requires both types. Incrementalists prevent analysis paralysis; Completionists prevent the codebase from becoming unmaintainable — which ultimately stops Incrementalists from shipping at all. The argument between them, at the level of specific decisions rather than ideology, is the argument a team should want to have.
The Dysfunction: One Type Managing the Other
- Completionist managing Incrementalists: Reviews become exhaustive quality gates; teams experience endless redesign cycles
- Incrementalist managing Completionists: Technical concerns dismissed as perfectionism; structural debt accumulates invisibly
Managing the Mix
- Make the type difference explicit — name it without stigma
- Separate design discussions (Completionist-led) from delivery discussions (Incrementalist-led)
- Create formal processes for “ship this now AND schedule the structural fix”
- Know your own type as a manager and compensate for its blind spots
- For Completionists: define “done” upfront; use time-boxing as a forcing function
- For Incrementalists: establish visible debt-tracking so incremental decisions are schedulable for payback
Related Concepts
Sources
-
Lopp, Michael. (2019). Managing Humans: Biting and Humorous Tales of a Software Engineering Manager. 3rd ed. Apress. ISBN: 978-1-484-23712-4. Chapter 39: “Incrementalists and Completionists.” Available: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4842-2158-7
-
Lopp, Michael (Rands). (n.d.). “Incrementalists & Completionists.” Rands In Repose (blog). Available: https://randsinrepose.com/archives/incrementalists-completionists/
-
Simon, Herbert A. (1955). “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 99–118.
- First formal articulation of satisficing; the Incrementalist maps directly onto Simon’s satisficing agent
-
Schwartz, Barry, Andrew Ward, John Monterosso, Sonja Lyubomirsky, Katherine White, and Darrin R. Lehman. (2002). “Maximizing versus Satisficing: Happiness Is a Matter of Choice.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 83, No. 5, pp. 1178–1197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1178
- Seminal empirical paper introducing the maximizer/satisficer distinction
-
Cunningham, Ward. (1992). “The WyCash Portfolio Management System.” In OOPSLA ‘92: Addendum to the Proceedings. ACM Press. Summarised at: https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TechnicalDebt.html
- Original coinage of “technical debt”; the primary mechanism by which unchecked Incrementalism imposes costs
Note
This content was drafted with assistance from AI tools for research, organization, and initial content generation. All final content has been reviewed, fact-checked, and edited by the author to ensure accuracy and alignment with the author’s intentions and perspective.