Fire and building departments disagree on inspection sequencing for a combined digital checklist. Which elicitation approach should the BA use to reconcile the conflict?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
When fire and building both think their inspection order is law, get them in a workshop and draw one shared checklist—don’t settle it with a stranger survey.
Full Explanation
When fire and building departments disagree on inspection sequencing for a combined digital checklist, the BA should facilitate a workshop to reconcile conflicting requirements and build a shared model. A facilitated session lets both authorities explain constraints, negotiate sequence, and leave with one implementable checklist rather than two incompatible mandates. Civic inspection systems cannot safely encode unresolved interdepartmental conflict.
Surveying random residents about which department should win fails conceptually because public preference polls do not resolve professional inspection sequencing rules. Interviewing only fire staff and implementing their sequence without building input fails because unilateral elicitation ignores a primary conflicting stakeholder and guarantees later rejection. Skipping elicitation and coding both sequences forever fails because dual forever-paths create ambiguity, training burden, and inconsistent enforcement.
Exam caveat: Cross-department process conflicts are resolved through facilitated reconciliation, not public polls or one-sided interviews. Operational check: run a joint workshop with fire and building, produce a single agreed inspection sequence model, update the digital checklist requirements and tests to match, and obtain both departments’ confirmation before release.