Gathering affected stakeholders helps reach agreement when feasibility is in question

When a requirement’s feasibility seems to clash with what’s possible, the knee-jerk move can feel tempting: pick sides, wait for a single person to decide, or retreat to a safer corner. The smarter, more human option is to pull the right voices into the same room or virtual space and work toward a shared path forward. In this kind of situation, gathering with affected stakeholders to attempt to reach an agreement is not just polite—it’s practical, resilient, and often the fastest route to a solid outcome.

Let’s unpack that approach and why it matters in real-world scenarios you’ll encounter as a requirements engineer.

Why disagreements happen—and why it’s okay to pause

Disagreements about feasibility pop up for a few reasons. People bring different perspectives: a developer sees technical constraints, a tester flags reliability concerns, a product owner weighs business impact, and a user representative highlights real-world usage. Some concerns are explicit, others are hidden in assumptions or unknowns. When you feel a debate heating up, it’s easy to rush to a conclusion or to defer. But a rushed decision can sow confusion, rework, and frustration later on.

Here’s the thing: feasibility isn’t a single number you can shout from a whiteboard. It’s a bundle of constraints—time, budget, technology, skills, data, and even regulatory or organizational boundaries. The best moves come from surfacing those constraints publicly, then evaluating them collectively.

D is for dialogue, not decree

The options in a multiple-choice scenario aim to test judgment about how to handle disagreement. A, B, and C each have a trace of truth but fall short in one way or another. The strongest choice is D: gather with affected stakeholders to attempt to reach an agreement. Why? Because it centers the discussion on shared understanding, not on who yells loudest or who has the most power in the room. It creates a space where concerns can be laid out, options can be weighed, and a plan can emerge that respects both needs and limits.

Who counts as affected stakeholders?

“Affected” isn’t a vague term. It includes anyone who will be impacted by the requirement or the decision to implement it. Think about:

• The team delivering the solution (developers, testers, architects)

• The product owner or sponsor (business value and priorities)

• Users or user representatives (real-world workflows and pain points)

• Compliance or security experts (risks and constraints)

• Operations or maintenance teams (long-term support and monitoring)

The goal is to bring in people who hold knowledge that could tilt the feasibility needle one way or another. It’s not about inviting every single person in the organization; it’s about including those whose input will shape the outcome.

A practical session: setting up a productive gathering

When feasibility clashes, you don’t want a free-for-all chat. You want a focused, constructive session. Here’s a practical recipe you can adapt, whether you’re in a classroom exercise or a real project.

• Prepare with data

• Gather the facts: current system constraints, performance requirements, data availability, architectural implications, and any known risks.

• Bring use cases or scenarios that illustrate how the requirement would work in practice.

• Document assumptions and dependencies so everyone can see what’s uncertain.

• Define a clear objective

• Start with a simple question: “What does a feasible solution look like for this requirement, given our constraints?”

• Set boundaries: what decisions will be made in this session, and what would require follow-up?

• Choose the right facilitator

• A neutral facilitator helps keep the discussion fair, manages time, and ensures quieter voices are heard.

• If you don’t have a dedicated facilitator, rotate the role for this session and agree on a few ground rules.

• Create a constructive agenda

• Welcome and objectives (5 minutes)

• Present the current feasibility picture (10–15 minutes)

• Open discussion: concerns, constraints, and alternative approaches (30–40 minutes)

• Review options and decision criteria (15–20 minutes)

• Decide or outline the next steps (10 minutes)

• Present options, not ultimatums

• Lay out the current approach, plus at least two viable alternatives. For each, note benefits, costs, and risks.

• Encourage questions and challenge ideas calmly. If someone spots a flaw, invite them to propose a workaround or mitigation.

• Capture outcomes in real time

• Use a shared board (digital or physical) to jot down decisions, responsible owners, and deadlines.

• Record the rationale: why a particular path was chosen, what constraints tipped the balance, and what will be monitored going forward.

• Create a traceability link from this decision to the original requirement so you can track impact later.

• Decide, or commit to a next step

• If a firm decision is possible, document it with acceptance criteria and a clear plan.

• If not, agree on a concrete path—perhaps a proof-of-concept, a revised requirement, or a staged rollout.

• Close with a clear next action

• Who will do what, by when? How will you verify feasibility next time? What signals will trigger a revisit?

The power of collaboration: what it buys you

Bringing affected stakeholders together has ripple effects that pay off beyond the current decision. It builds trust—people see that their views matter and that you’re listening. It clarifies expectations, so there aren’t late surprises that derail the project later on. It also surfaces practical trade-offs early: what can be delivered now, what needs more time, and what might require a different approach altogether.

Of course, there are risks. Too many voices can stall progress, or a few vocal players can dominate. A skilled facilitator helps manage dynamics, ensures equal airtime, and keeps the conversation grounded in evidence rather than opinions. You might also run into organizational inertia or conflicting priorities. Those are real, but they aren’t insurmountable if you keep the focus on shared goals and transparent reasoning.

A few practical caveats

• Don’t treat feasibility as a binary. It’s a spectrum. You can push feasibility forward with alternative designs, phased implementations, or different technology choices.

• Document assumptions and constraints. A well-kept record reduces future debates and helps new team members get up to speed quickly.

• Use small, iterative steps when possible. If a full solution is blocked, test a component or a simplified version to validate an assumption.

• Keep the dialogue human. It’s easy to slip into jargon or debates about “the right method.” Remember there are people on both sides who want the project to succeed.

A few real-world touches

In many teams, a quick workshop with the right mix of people can defuse tension before it grows. If you’re coordinating remotely, tools like virtual whiteboards, collaborative docs, and shared dashboards can keep everyone aligned. If you’re in a co-located space, a short, focused whiteboard session with a timer and agreed ground rules works wonders. And yes, you’ll still have to manage risk and dependencies, but you’ll do it with a clearer map and a shared sense of purpose.

How this approach translates into everyday work

Let me explain with a simple example. Suppose a requirement calls for real-time data analytics in a feature that touches data privacy controls. The feasibility clash might be real-time speed versus encryption overhead, plus regulatory constraints. Instead of calling a halt or deferring to one person’s judgement, you gather the affected folks—the data engineers, security specialists, product owner, and a privacy advocate. You surface the constraints, weigh options (e.g., streaming vs. batched processing, edge computing, or privacy-preserving analytics), and decide on an approach that keeps the user’s needs intact while staying within risk and cost boundaries. The outcome isn’t just a decision; it’s a documented path forward with agreed acceptance criteria and owners.

A quick, friendly takeaway

• When feasibility hits a snag, speak with the people who matter most to the outcome.

• Frame the session with a clear objective, solid data, and a plan that encourages collaboration.

• Keep the dialogue practical: present options, discuss trade-offs, and capture decisions for future reference.

• Build trust through transparency. People perform better when they know their input matters and there’s a fair process behind decisions.

If you’re studying IREB foundations or working through real-world scenarios, this approach isn’t about “winning” a debate. It’s about creating a shared understanding so you can move forward confidently. You’ll reduce back-and-forth, improve clarity, and increase the odds that the final solution actually fits the problem—and the constraints—that come with it.

Closing thought: people often fear disagreements because they fear chaos. But with the right structure and a spirit of collaboration, disagreements can become the spark that leads to better, more resilient outcomes. Next time you face a feasibility clash, consider this path: gather the affected stakeholders, listen intently, weigh the options, and document the decision. It’s not a shortcut; it’s solid engineering with real human buy-in, and that combination tends to lead to a better product and a smoother voyage for everyone involved.