A disagreement becomes useful when the people involved can identify the decision it should improve. Start by naming that decision and the consequence of getting it wrong.
Two colleagues may appear to disagree about a spreadsheet format while actually protecting different needs. One needs quick field entry; the other needs traceable weekly totals. Debating which layout looks better will leave the underlying requirements unresolved.
Find the testable difference
Ask each person what they expect to happen under the proposed approach. Which error, delay or missing detail concerns them? Can a small example reveal whether that concern is justified?
In a fictional review, test the same completed shift through both layouts. Compare entry effort and whether the weekly result can be traced. Record what the test shows and what it cannot establish.
End with a decision route
Some disagreements remain after a fair test. Identify who has authority to choose, which trade-offs they are accepting and when the choice will be reviewed. Agreement about the process can allow work to continue without pretending everyone holds the same opinion.
Keep criticism attached to the proposal and its consequences. A person should be able to revise an idea without losing face. The aim is a better decision and a workable relationship that can handle the next disagreement too.