I think I had experience of this just this morning! *gulp*
There was a fast, 'immediate action' route to fixing a problem - which one stakeholder was pushing hard for, and a 'longer game' championed by another. These disparate approaches fell into a natural opposition - with Mr. Action accusing Mr. Long-game of inaction and 'drifting', and Mr.Long-game accusing Mr.Action of rushing in headstrong without all the info. I have been stuck in between mediating for a month. We had a breakthrough meeting this morning, which essentially passes over the quick fix, and implements the 'long-game' - but in a much more immediate way than it ever would have happened without the conflict from Mr.Action.

These two particular stakeholders, in fact - existing at either end of a certain spectrum - often ram up against each other and the result is a very strong middle road. If you can achieve that kind of balance of approaches, and where you can have a strong enough, respectful enough relationship (essentially a friendship in this instance, but admittedly that isn't always possible) - then that's a recipe for some great, conflict-inspired success I think.
Hopefully that wasn't too abstract!
Dan