Conflicting requirements are the norm, not the exception. Different stakeholders have different stakes; their wants don't align.
Common conflict types:
- Sales wants flexibility; Finance wants control. "Reps should be able to discount up to 30%" vs "Every discount needs approval".
- Marketing wants data access; Privacy wants restrictions. "Marketing should see all customer info" vs "GDPR limits PII access".
- Field Service wants offline capability; IT wants single-source-of-truth. "Reps need to work without connectivity" vs "All data must live in Salesforce".
- Sales Manager wants visibility into rep deals; rep wants privacy. "Show me all my reps' opps" vs "Only my deals visible to me".
Resolution approach:
1. Surface the conflict explicitly. Don't paper over it; name it.
2. Trace to the underlying need. Ask "why" repeatedly until you hit the actual concern. "I want to see everything" usually means "I worry about pipeline accuracy" — which has many solutions besides total visibility.
3. Find the common ground. Both stakeholders usually share a higher-level goal (revenue, customer success). Anchor in that.
4. Propose options. Don't dictate; offer 2-3 paths with trade-offs.
5. Escalate if needed. When stakeholders genuinely can't agree, escalate to the project sponsor for resolution.
6. Document the decision and rationale. Whoever lost the debate needs to see why; future you will need it too when the question recurs.
Example resolution:
Sales wants 30% discount autonomy; Finance wants approval. Resolution: 0-10% auto-approved, 10-25% needs Manager (fast turnaround), 25%+ needs VP. Both get most of what they wanted.
Common mistakes:
- Trying to please everyone. Some conflicts can't be resolved without a winner; trying to satisfy both produces a Frankenstein design.
- Letting the loud voice win. Often the quieter stakeholder is right; consultant role includes holding space for dissent.
- Avoiding the conflict. Buried disagreements surface at UAT or worse.
- Making the decision unilaterally. Consultant should facilitate, not dictate (unless the conflict is technical, where you're the expert).
Senior consultants treat conflict as information: "if these stakeholders disagree, that tells me something important about the business." The disagreement itself often reveals the real architectural question.