Could you tell me about a time you disagreed with a Technical stakeholder, and how did you resolve it?

Question

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

Context:
I was tasked with building reimbursement automation to support merchants on BwP.
Merchants eligible for reimbursements (due to carrier damage, warehouse loss, or
customer damage) accounted for 1-3% of all orders, translating to $3M/month in
reimbursements. With a gross purchase volume of $100M/month, this meant manually
examining 100,000 orders and triaging 10,000 reimbursement tickets monthly. The
burden on tech, support, and finance teams was immense, and it was clear that
manual processes were not scalable.

Action:
As I began to break down the problem, I identified two potential paths: build
the solution from scratch or reuse an existing one. Reimbursement automation
exists today for Amazon.com [http://Amazon.com], FBA, and other businesses, and
I wanted to onboard BwP’s use case to the existing services.

I collaborated with the engineering team and concluded that reusing the existing
reimbursement automation used by Amazon.com [http://Amazon.com] and FBA would be
10x more efficient from a time and resource point of view. However, the central
reimbursement team was unwilling to prioritize onboarding BwP’s use case, as our
business was still small compared to Amazon retail, which was 100x the size. The
central team thus prioritized the problem based on the scale of the business
unit. When we met, the central reimbursement team gave us a timeline of 3 years
to complete. Meanwhile, the pressure from the customer support and finance team
was significant as reimbursement automation became a scaling bottleneck - and
the timeline became a friction point, that boiled over. I also understood the
central team’s point of view - they have their own goals and want to maximize
the impact they create with the resources they have at hand.

Rather than pushing back, I worked with the reimbursement team’s PM to define
the exact scope and requirements for BwP. We identified reusable components and
scoped out the effort with both engineering teams. We could take on 40% of the
work ourselves and complete the non-critical components. I communicated the
bottleneck and scaling issue to my VP, recommending that we fund an additional
headcount. I also contacted the VP of the central reimbursement team, explaining
that while BwP was small now, it was Amazon’s next big bet in retail, with
projected revenues to rival Amazon's in 10 years. I emphasized that the timing
was critical to support this growth. I also promised the additional headcount
can be absorbed by the central team, to make up for any lost work on their other
projects. I secured the central team's agreement to prioritize our onboarding.

Impact:
Once the reimbursement automation was implemented, we scaled to track $880M in
orders, reimbursing $42M in the first year. We achieved 100% automation of
reimbursement cases and reduced merchant support contacts related to
reimbursements by 98%.

Learning:
Empathy with your counterparts is crucial. Understanding their constraints and
working together to find a middle ground enables progress. Instead of pushing, I
found a way to align both teams' goals and demonstrate the strategic importance
of the project to gain buy-in.

Anonymous · Answer

"I once encountered a disagreement with a technical stakeholder regarding the
prioritization of features for a new product launch. The stakeholder was adamant
about implementing a particular feature that, while technically feasible, didn't
align with the product's core value proposition or target market.
To reconcile this disagreement, I initiated a collaborative discussion. I
started by actively listening to the stakeholder's perspective, understanding
their rationale for prioritizing the feature. I then presented data-driven
insights on user behavior and market trends to demonstrate how the proposed
feature might not yield the desired results.
To find a common ground, we explored alternative approaches that would address
the stakeholder's concerns while staying aligned with the product goals.
Ultimately, we agreed on a phased approach, implementing a simplified version of
the feature initially and reassessing its impact based on user feedback. This
compromise not only resolved the disagreement but also strengthened our working
relationship."
Key points to highlight in your answer:
 * Active listening and understanding the other person's perspective.
 * Using data and evidence to support your point.
 * Finding a compromise or alternative solution that meets both parties' needs.
 * Maintaining a collaborative and respectful approach.

Anonymous · Answer

"I once encountered a disagreement with a technical stakeholder regarding the
prioritization of features for a new product launch. The stakeholder was adamant
about implementing a particular feature that, while technically feasible, didn't
align with the product's core value proposition or target market.
To reconcile this disagreement, I initiated a collaborative discussion. I
started by actively listening to the stakeholder's perspective, understanding
their rationale for prioritizing the feature. I then presented data-driven
insights on user behavior and market trends to demonstrate how the proposed
feature might not yield the desired results.
To find a common ground, we explored alternative approaches that would address
the stakeholder's concerns while staying aligned with the product goals.
Ultimately, we agreed on a phased approach, implementing a simplified version of
the feature initially and reassessing its impact based on user feedback. This
compromise not only resolved the disagreement but also strengthened our working
relationship."
Key points to highlight in your answer:
 * Active listening and understanding the other person's perspective.
 * Using data and evidence to support your point.
 * Finding a compromise or alternative solution that meets both parties' needs.
 * Maintaining a collaborative and respectful approach.

Anonymous · Answer

"I once encountered a disagreement with a technical stakeholder regarding the
prioritization of features for a new product launch. The stakeholder was adamant
about implementing a particular feature that, while technically feasible, didn't
align with the product's core value proposition or target market.
To reconcile this disagreement, I initiated a collaborative discussion. I
started by actively listening to the stakeholder's perspective, understanding
their rationale for prioritizing the feature. I then presented data-driven
insights on user behavior and market trends to demonstrate how the proposed
feature might not yield the desired results.
To find a common ground, we explored alternative approaches that would address
the stakeholder's concerns while staying aligned with the product goals.
Ultimately, we agreed on a phased approach, implementing a simplified version of
the feature initially and reassessing its impact based on user feedback. This
compromise not only resolved the disagreement but also strengthened our working
relationship."
Key points to highlight in your answer:
 * Active listening and understanding the other person's perspective.
 * Using data and evidence to support your point.
 * Finding a compromise or alternative solution that meets both parties' needs.
 * Maintaining a collaborative and respectful approach.

Could you tell me about a time you disagreed with a Technical stakeholder, and how did you resolve it?

Practice this question with AI

Go Premium

Practice More Questions

Community Answers

Unlock Community Insights

Unlock Community Insights

Unlock Community Insights

Unlock Community Insights