Two stakeholders want contradictory requirements. Who decides?
Conflicting requirementsMake the conflict explicit and connect it to outcomes, constraints, and decision authority. The delivery team should explain options, not silently choose which stakeholder matters more.
What to do now
- Document both requirements and their rationale
- Demonstrate the conflict with an example
- Compare feasible compromises and impacts
- Refer the decision to the accountable owner
When to escalate
Escalate when
The conflict blocks committed work and exceeds the team's authority.
Who decides
The scope owner and authorized sponsor
Example
Finance needs approval before purchase while a department wants instant ordering, so an authorized low-risk exception path is considered.
Mistake to avoid
Implementing both requirements without checking their incompatibility.
Prevent a repeat
Review ambiguous requirements and unresolved acceptance conditions before the affected work begins.
Suggested ApprovedFlow setup
- Projects
- Tasks
- Documents
- Approvals
Keep the agreed scope and acceptance evidence with the project; record any proposed change and its decision separately. See the platform
Related cases
- How can we manage scope when users discover needs during delivery?Evolving requirements
- We forgot nonfunctional requirements. What should we check now?Missing service-quality requirements
- The project board and product owner disagree. Who decides?Conflicting governance accountabilities
- Stakeholders want different levels of detail in the same meeting. What works?Mixed-purpose governance meeting