Put a group of diverse experts working together to solve a problem (this sounds like design practice) and chances are that somebody will be miffed by the end of it. Excluding fine tuned and prepared teams, I’d say this is more the norm than the exception.
Such meetings, and I’m focusing on creative meetings at the beginning of a project; require people to switch between two gears. Initially the M.O. is to be light hearted, emotional, playful and non-judgemental and then, when the ideas are collected, one becomes a bit more analytic, rational and focused in order to select the best. And this is where the conflict tends to start. The “creative types” become frustrated with the apparent nitpicking from the “technical types” and the “technical types” wishing the “creatives” would come up with more realistic stuff. 
It is common to say that technical specialists (e.g. electronic engineers) are less creative than the “creative types” (e.g. artists). I think this is an huge generalization that equates expression with creativity. “Creativity” involves some sort of fitting between problem and solution, “Expression” requires no problem nor it attempts be a “solution”.
Like many, I also believe that everybody can be creative. However, I think that this creativity manifests itself in different ways and therefore, different types of creativity would be best employed at specific stages of the creation process.
To put it simply, “Technical Types”, often prefer to concentrate on technical execution, and while this requires them to be creative, the result of this creativity is encapsulated in often opaque applications that the majority of the population cannot see or understand. With their attention directed to issues of execution (e.g. component availability, battery capacity, etc), other (more visible and “creative”) aspects of the project become secondary (e.g. physical interaction or brand manifestation through physical shape).
In my opinion, when you bring together different types of creativity, you must acknowledge their differences and prepare accordingly. Because what typically happens is that you know you own area of expertise and many of its subsets but tend be unaware of other’s complexity. If you are a designer, you probably can imagine different types of graphic-design-related jobs (e.g. typography, editorial design, webdesign, communication design, etc) but maybe you cannot list something similar in the electronic engineering field (e.g. micro-controllers, digital or analogue, high voltage and low voltage and so on). So, when we overestimate the depth and scope of our area in detriment of others’, the result is competition between creativity types. This is a waste.
So,in future group creative activities, I suggest the following:
1 – Acknowledge that if your area of expertise is wide, so must be that of others. This gives you perspective and allows for a impartial discussion of ideas, where no one is merely trying to prove worth or establish supremacy of his/her own domain. Listen. Real good. If somebody says “imagine we don’t need batteries”, imagine batteries are not necessary, for example. For real. Suspension of disbelief is key
2 – Realize what type of creativity you use the most. Is it focused on execution details or on the big picture? Both are needed. Big picture with no execution details is just an idea. Details with no context are a missed opportunity for something grand.
3 – Understand that as long as you respect #1 and #2, it is ok to be bold on the defense of your ideas. Sometimes, while trying to integrate everybody’s input (which we must, but sensibly), we abandon more appropriate contributions from one’s expertise. This is a disservice and needs to be avoided.
Finally, I’ve written this with a designer’s background. I’ve honestly tried to make this as impartial as I can, but if something slipped in. Please do tell me, for real.
 Naturally this is not always the case, but still pretty illustrative of common situations.