Two Stakeholders, One Requirement
A business analyst is defining requirements for a claims intake portal. The claims director wants mandatory attachment of supporting documents before a claim can be submitted, arguing it reduces fraud and rework. The customer service manager wants submission allowed without attachments, arguing that customers often lack documents at the moment of the incident and that forcing attachment will push them to phone in instead, raising cost per claim. Both have data: the director cites a 12 percent rework rate on incomplete claims; the service manager cites a 40 percent abandonment rate on a similar form in a different product line. Neither has data on how many customers would actually phone in. The sponsor wants the requirement resolved this week. The portal must also meet an accessibility standard that constrains how validation errors can be presented.
1. How should the business analyst analyse and resolve this conflict between the two stakeholders?
Read the worked answer
Diagnosing the conflict
This is not a personality clash or a simple priority dispute. The two stakeholders are optimizing different legitimate objectives: fraud and rework control versus conversion and channel cost. Both have evidence, and the evidence is asymmetric in an important way. The director's 12 percent rework figure is measured on this process. The service manager's 40 percent abandonment figure is measured on a different product line, so its transferability is an assumption, not a finding. The analyst should make that asymmetry explicit without dismissing the service manager, because the underlying concern is sound even if the cited number is not directly applicable.
Reframing the requirement
The productive move is to challenge the binary. The requirement as stated is 'attachments mandatory at submission.' That framing forces a winner. The analyst should decompose it into the underlying need, which is that claims should not enter adjudication without supporting evidence, and then ask whether that need requires blocking at submission or can be met by a staged process: submit now, attach within a defined window, with the claim held in a pending state until documents arrive. That satisfies the director's rework concern (nothing reaches adjudication incomplete) and the service manager's conversion concern (no customer is blocked at the moment of incident).
Handling the evidence gap
The analyst should be honest that neither party has data on phone-in behaviour, and should propose a cheap way to get it: a short pilot or an analysis of existing channel-switch patterns. Given the sponsor's one-week deadline, the analyst can recommend the staged design as the lower-regret option, since it can be tightened to mandatory attachment later if data supports it, whereas starting mandatory and loosening later will have already lost the customers.
Accessibility constraint
The accessibility standard is not a third opinion to be negotiated; it is a constraint. The analyst should involve an accessibility specialist early, because staged submission changes when and how validation errors appear, and retrofitting accessible error handling is expensive.
2. How should the business analyst document and communicate the resolution so that both stakeholders accept it?
Read the worked answer
Documentation
The analyst should record the requirement in its resolved form with the rationale attached, not just the final wording. Specifically: the requirement statement for staged submission with the attachment window, the two competing positions, the evidence each relied on, the reason the staged design was chosen, and the condition under which the decision would be revisited (for example, if pilot data shows phone-in rates stay flat under staged submission, mandatory attachment can be reconsidered).
Recording the losing position and its rationale matters for two reasons. It shows the service manager that her concern was heard and is preserved in the record, which makes acceptance easier. And it protects the project if the decision is later questioned, because the reasoning is auditable rather than reconstructed from memory.
Communication
The analyst should communicate to each stakeholder separately before any joint session. To the director: the staged design still guarantees no incomplete claim reaches adjudication, so the fraud and rework objective is met; the change is where the gate sits, not whether there is one. To the service manager: her conversion concern drove the design, and the pilot will test it. Separate conversations let each hear the resolution in terms of their own objective rather than as a compromise imposed by the other.
The analyst should then confirm the decision in a joint forum with the sponsor present, so the sponsor's authority closes the issue rather than leaving it open to renegotiation.
Escalation boundary
If either stakeholder rejects the staged design, the analyst should not keep negotiating indefinitely. The analyst should present both options to the sponsor with the evidence, the trade-offs, and a recommendation, and let the sponsor decide. That is the correct use of the sponsor's authority and it protects the analyst's neutrality.