What type of conflict is least suitable for resolution by a requirements engineer?

The identification of architectural conflict as the least suitable for resolution by a requirements engineer is based on the nature of the conflict itself. Architectural conflicts often revolve around high-level design decisions, technical constraints, and the structural integrity of the system architecture itself. These decisions require a deep understanding of both technical aspects and existing system limitations, as well as consideration of trade-offs that go beyond the immediate scope of requirements management.

Requirements engineers typically focus on understanding, documenting, and managing stakeholder requirements, ensuring that they reflect the needs and desires of users and stakeholders. While they may recognize architectural conflicts as part of the broader conversation, they may not possess the specialized knowledge necessary to resolve such conflicts effectively.

In contrast, subject matter conflicts, value conflicts, and cost conflicts are more aligned with stakeholder perspectives, preferences, and priorities. These types of conflicts often involve negotiation and compromise rather than deep technical scrutiny, making them more amenable to resolution by requirements engineers. They can often mediate discussions among stakeholders to reach a consensus or facilitate clarifying requirements and priorities.