Change can reveal priorities, needs and criteria that already existed. Conflict is not always an error; it becomes harmful when it is personalised, avoided or resolved without understanding the interests involved.

Two NexoLab teams disagreed about migration pace. Rather than arguing over who was right, they put the interests on the table: service continuity, data quality and support capacity. Shared criteria led to a phased rollout.

1. Describe the problem with observable facts.
2. Listen to each party's interests and constraints.
3. Define shared criteria for evaluating options.
4. Generate alternatives and make a verifiable agreement.
5. Review the agreement on a set date.

Where there is a power imbalance, risk of harm or persistent deadlock, use a neutral facilitator or established channels.

Mistake: arguing about intentions rather than behaviour and impact. Tip: use specific examples and avoid labels.

Mistake: seeking a quick compromise without criteria. Tip: agree what the decision must protect before negotiating options.

Choose one disagreement. Write the facts, your interest, the other party's possible interest and two shared criteria.

Fact: reviews arrive late. Your interest: predictable planning. Other interest: uninterrupted service. Criteria: quality and predictability. Option: two review windows each week.

Adaptive conflict resolution turns rigid positions into interests, criteria and reviewable agreements.