Remember to go beyond voting, or stack ranking the feature sets. Also, it is best not to jump to escalating the problem to senior managers or executives to resolve scope disagreements among stakeholders. While each of these options are valid, it is best to use this question as an opportunity to demonstrate more advanced conflict resolution techniques. You are more likely to impress your interviewer if your answer includes an intelligent and systematic approach, or one that leverages your subject matter expertise to resolve stakeholder conflicts.

"One of the fist things I would suggest we do in a situation like this is use a systematic approach to analyze the costs, benefits, and risks of each feature set. I typically use a matrix with a weighted scale based on how well each feature set aligns with the goals of a project. From there, there is typically a set of features that stand out as front-runners because they are quick hits with high benefits, or the cost of delay is significant.

I also like to discuss the 80/20 rule with my stakeholders who are unfamiliar with it. We look for the 20% of features that would add the most benefit and then discuss the possibility to tabling the rest until some of the other groups have their top needs met.

Finally, I look for obvious order of operations issues or other technological considerations that help to break a stalemate. For example, I once worked with a senior leader in finance who demanded several reports be developed on the front end of the project. I explained that in my experience it often makes sense to tackle that work down the line when it becomes more clear how the solution will be used and what all the relevant points of data will be. We agreed to gather his must-have data requirements so that we could keep the reporting implications in mind while the other operational features were built. In the end, the reports we built were wildly different than what he had originally imagined and he thanked me for my guidance."