Typically, analytical thinking proceeds on a linear path.  Leaping to the end of the path without considering the check-points along the way can be innovative but risky.

Mixing a strategic thinker with an analyst and charging them with reaching a decision together can lead to some interesting results, that is, if they both survive.

Out of Step

When collaborators are approaching the problem from different perspectives, you can end up with a situation where some team members require patience while waiting for others to catch up to the obvious conclusion.

This can lead to arguments, frustration and could cause delays in moving forward to resolve the problem.  A result can be analysis paralysis.

This situation is way too common.  Stakeholders basically give up in frustration adopting the attitude  “it is what it is”, nothing I can do but accept the circumstances.

Bridging the Divide

In these situations it is important to first recognize the root causes of the delays.  Accepting the lack of a resolution can be an approach but it is seldom a good choice.

Collaboration among people with significant differences of perspective can be very difficult but not impossible.  The quality of the outcomes make it virtually always worth the effort to go for collaborative resolution.

Accepting the lack of closure because addressing the underlying disagreements, in a respectful and open way is too hard is never the best approach and just leads to frustration.