In the case study provided, both Shaun and Pablo fail to listen to the other person speaking. It be can assumed from the example that they do, in fact, hear each other, but neither person has begun to process the information received from the other party. As a result, they continue to evade any solutions to the problem at hand.
Both men could greatly benefit from actively listening to the other person. If that was to happen, they may see the obvious compromise, which would be to further evaluate the server-based option to determine whether it maintained the individual PC options which are important to Shaun, while providing the RAM saving options for Pablo. Both individuals make valid points for their perspective viewpoints, yet neither has remotely considered the other person’s point of view.
In order to facilitate a more harmonious conversation, at least one person has to ask the other a question to clarify the information presented. Perhaps, Shaun could ask Pablo to further explain how the server-based option would allow the individual user to manage the data effectively. Pablo could also ask Shaun about the features that he believes are so important for the success of the project. This would allow both men to stop focusing on their individual concerns and begin to see the concerns of the other person.
Once a question has been asked by either party, the listener should in some way restate the information presented to ensure that he understands the concept completely. This gives the speaker the opportunity to clarify any misunderstandings before further issues can arise. This process opens up the dialogue and creates an environment where both men can freely discuss ideas without tensions building. The result should be that the product is further investigated to determine if it meets the needs of both individuals.