Expert Answer
Anonymous
During one of our verification projects, we faced a challenge in defining the right test strategy for a new design block. I strongly advocated for merging an existing, previously verified block into a shared verification environment, believing it would improve efficiency and catch bugs with minimal effort. However, my teammate strongly advocated for a standalone block-level verification, arguing it would provide more deterministic coverage. This disagreement led to delays in testbench development and friction between us.
Recognizing the need for alignment, I initiated a structured discussion where we both presented our viewpoints with supporting data. I focused on ensuring we evaluated the trade-offs objectively rather than debating which approach was superior. After evaluating the pros and cons, I proposed a hybrid approach: conducting initial verification within the combined testbench for faster validation while simultaneously estimating the effort required for a standalone testbench. Once we mapped out our plans, we found that my approach led to a faster testbench setup, while his plan had overlaps in checker development. Recognizing this, we aligned on using the existing testbench while developing only the necessary new checkers. Later, we proposed building a dedicated block-level testbench to further improve coverage and verification confidence. This approach was well received by architects, designers, and management, as it balanced efficiency and thorough testing. It was a proud moment for me because it demonstrated the power of collaborative problem-solving, data-driven decision-making, and adaptability. This experience reinforced my belief that fostering open discussions, considering multiple perspectives, and focusing on practical solutions leads to stronger team synergy and better project outcomes.