When we work with high performing teams there can be difference of views as which financial analysis method to be used for business. I am of the view that this difference DOES NOT have to be aligned...Methods are only means for the final answer. We can have difference of view on the same and sometimes it is good for the business to see these analysis and get better insight of the data

A consensus-building method that considers multiple perspectives may help your team agree on financial analysis. Team members fill out anonymous surveys in recurrent rounds using the Delphi technique to enhance forecasts and unite perspectives. Using consensus estimates, which are the predictions of multiple analysts, can also eliminate bias and enhance financial projections. Open communication and established methods can unite your team's diverse viewpoints and build a sound financial analysis foundation.

Understand the Perspectives: Listen to the different perspectives your team members are proposing. Understand the pros and cons of each method and the reasons behind their preferences. Facilitate Open Discussions: Create a safe space for open discussions where everyone can voice their opinions without judgment. This helps in understanding the underlying reasons for their preferences. Evaluate Methods Objectively: Use data and case studies to evaluate the effectiveness of each method. This helps in making an informed decision based on evidence rather than opinions. Document the Decision: Once a consensus is reached, document the decision and the rationale behind it. This serves as a reference for and ensures everyone is on the same page

To resolve disagreements on financial analysis methods, I facilitate open discussions, conduct comparative analyses, and seek expert input. By listening actively and communicating clearly, we find common ground and agree on a unified approach that aligns with project goals.

Here are some ways to help you achieve this: * Establish open and respectful dialogue: * Organize a dedicated meeting. * Encourage everyone to express themselves. * Create a trusting environment. * Identify points of convergence and divergence: * List the different methods used. * Compare the advantages and disadvantages: For each method, identify its strengths and weaknesses. * Highlight the common points. * Find common ground: * Define a common goal. * Establish selection criteria. * Test different approaches. * Implement a consensual methodology. * Develop a common protocol. * Train the team. * Monitor and evaluate regularly. * Seek expert advice if necessary.

Suggest a third method that includes components from the other two suggested. This will give room for each to have “its way” but also to accommodate the other method’s advantages

I’ve found that multiple methods of analysis - when feasible given any constraints like time or cost - can often lead to a better, more comprehensive outcome. Especially in areas like valuation or cost estimating, when there is often no one “perfect” view for all situations. Ranges and the ensuing stakeholder discussions of where you fall within those ranges are equally important .

One of my experience: must create a collaborative framework: we should established guidelines for how to approach problems—whether it's looking at multiple methods, defining evaluation criteria, or agreeing on a decision-making process. When everyone knows the process, it’s easier to move forward as a group.

Financial Analysis methods may differ in line with the final data that we require. Can inform the Team the purpose for which particular analysis/data is required and can involve the Teams and take their inputs and the Lead can finalise keeping the Team active in finalisation process.