The hard part is rarely the solution. It is that six parties mean different things by the same sentence, nobody says so out loud, and the project discovers it in month four. I hear every party out separately, turn what they say into requirements you can check, and run the session where the contradictions are settled.
“We keep discussing and nothing gets decided. And nobody can say what we actually agreed.”
Disagreement is not the problem — undiscovered disagreement is. Two teams use the word “customer” for different people for half a year, and the cost surfaces when it is expensive to fix. The work is to make the difference visible early enough that it is still cheap.
Three stages from scattered opinions to a signed list. The method behind it runs through my cases — the German Red Cross project put students, social workers and professionals in one room and came out with three prioritised problem statements.
Every party separately, before anyone sits in the same room. People say different things in a group than they do alone, and the quiet objection is usually the one that sinks the project. This is also where I learn how decisions really get made here — who signs, who blocks, which escalation path exists but is never written down.
What people say becomes requirements you can check: who needs what, why, and how you would know it is met. Written this way, two statements that sounded compatible stop being compatible — and that is the point. Contradictions get a name instead of a shrug.
One session, with the contradictions on the table and criteria agreed before anyone sees them. Where opinion meets opinion nothing moves, so I bring in a third party neither side can argue with: evidence from users. You leave with a prioritised list, the reasoning written down, and the open points named as open.
Every party separately, before anyone sits in the same room. People say different things in a group than they do alone, and the quiet objection is usually the one that sinks the project. This is also where I learn how decisions really get made here — who signs, who blocks, which escalation path exists but is never written down.
What people say becomes requirements you can check: who needs what, why, and how you would know it is met. Written this way, two statements that sounded compatible stop being compatible — and that is the point. Contradictions get a name instead of a shrug.
One session, with the contradictions on the table and criteria agreed before anyone sees them. Where opinion meets opinion nothing moves, so I bring in a third party neither side can argue with: evidence from users. You leave with a prioritised list, the reasoning written down, and the open points named as open.
I do not decide for you. I make the decision possible: every position heard, every contradiction visible, every priority justified. What you sign, you signed knowing why.
Two to five weeks, depending on how many parties
This is for projects where the disagreement is the project — and where everyone has been polite about it for too long.
People nod, nothing is decided, and four weeks later the same argument runs again with different words.
You get the contradictions named and settled, in writing.
Each side assumes the other meant what they meant. The gap surfaces when it is expensive.
You get one requirements list both sides actually signed.
Items exist because someone once asked. Nobody remembers who, why, or whether it still matters.
You get a prioritised list with the reasoning attached.
There is a workshop in it, and it is the smallest part. A workshop without separate conversations beforehand produces the result the loudest person in the room would have produced anyway. The work is what happens before: hearing each party alone, writing down what they actually mean, and finding where two sentences that sound compatible are not.
Rarely by negotiating between them. Where opinion meets opinion, the more senior opinion wins and the problem returns. What settles it is a third party neither side can argue with — what users actually do. “Neither of your assumptions holds” ends a dispute faster than any compromise.
Turning what people want into statements you can check. “It should be easy to use” is a wish. “A new employee completes the first booking without help in under four minutes” is a requirement — you can test it, and you can tell when it is met. Most project arguments are about wishes that were never converted.
I am in training for CPRE, the standard requirements-engineering certification, and for Scrum Product Owner. I am certified CPUX-F and a Digital Innovation & Product Manager (IHK). I would rather you judge the work: the German Red Cross sprint, the Volkswagen sprint with Microsoft, and the Vaillant intranet were all multi-party projects.
Then that is the result, and it is worth knowing in week three rather than month six. Some conflicts are not about facts but about goals, and no evidence settles those — they need a decision from above. My job is to tell you which kind you have, clearly enough that the right person can act on it.
A free 30-minute call. No pitch, no pressure — an honest look at where your project is stuck and whether I can help.