The most comprehensive bank Interview Answer Review tooling available online.

Situation:
While working on the CloudGate (CASB) program at Oracle, I had to collaborate closely with a lead engineer who was highly technical but often resistant to input from non-engineering stakeholders, including program managers like myself.

Task:
Our shared goal was to integrate CloudGate’s policy engine with a third-party SaaS provider under tight deadlines for a compliance milestone. Coordination was critical, but communication friction risked delaying delivery.

Action:
I focused on building mutual respect by first acknowledging his technical expertise and then shifting our interactions to be data- and goal-driven. Instead of pushing process, I came to discussions with clear risk/impact scenarios and timelines tied directly to customer and audit deadlines. I also adapted my style—fewer meetings, more async updates with technical clarity—which matched his preference. Gradually, we established a working rhythm built on outcomes, not personalities.

Result:
We delivered the integration on time, passed the compliance audit, and by the end of the project, had built enough trust that he started proactively surfacing risks to me before I had to ask. The experience reinforced for me that adapting communication style and focusing on shared goals is often more effective than trying to change personalities.

I was working on a high stake project with very high visibility from my senior management.

Me and my manager were thinking of can we leverage the quality of the development using help from QA team. He wanted to keep the QA team separate. His point of view was that a separate team would keep clear focus for the team and they would focus on finding more customer facing bugs. I thought that we should have QA embedded in the scrum team as that would help in easier collaboration and quicker bug fixes plus this is a more efficient way. Though I understood his point of view I always believed that in QA embedded inside the scrum team. I went back had a thought to measure the merits and demerits of the proposals. I put down in a slide the merits and demerits of each. Merit from having a separate team, clear focus and better filtering of quality, demerits less collaboration with development team. I then proposed that the QA engineers attend the calls of dev teams but keep a separate QA board for their tasks. This will give clarity of what bugs they find, what test scenarios they create and finally the metrics to measure the bugs reported per development. My boss and I both agreed as it solved the problems of each proposals

אפליקצית וולט היא מוצר מצוין שחדר לשוק הישראלי במהירות והפך לדרך המרכזית של אנשים לרכוש ולהזמין אוכל. יש לי מספר רעיונות לשיפור האפליקציה אבל קודם כל הייתי מתחילה בניתוח הדאטה הקיים בוולט, ביצוע מחקר שוק וביצוע מחקר צרכנים שיאפשר בחינה עמוקה של צרכי הלקוחות באופן כזה שיניב מיפוי ברור של הכאבים של הלקוחות. 

לאחר בחינת השוק, הדאטה והצרכנים, הייתי מעלה אסטרטגיות לפתרונות שונים שיכולים לתת מענה לצרכים. 

לאחר הצגת האפשרויות השונות, הייתי בוחנת את הפתרונות במחקר צרכנים נוסף, מבצעת ניתוח של היתרונות והחסרונות של כל אחד מהפתרונות ומקבלת תמונה ברורה יותר של הפתרון המתאים ביותר. לאחר מציאת הפתרון הרלוונטי ביותר, מגדירה kpis ברורים לשינוי/ התוספת במוצר הקיים ומודדת לאורך כך הדרך את העמידה בהם. לדוגמה אם מצאתי שיש קהל עם צורך שטרם נתנו לו מענה, כגון פרסום מתוכנים של שפים ובשלנים חובבים, שניתן לגזור מהם רשימת קניות מסודרת ולבצע את ההזמנה באמצעות וולט, הייתי מגדירה מה יחשב להצלחה לפיצר החדש, בכמה יעלה את שביעות רצון הלקוחות, תדירות השימוש, שימור לקוחות לאורך זמן והגדלת המכירות. 

I’m my current role, during a core-team meeting I noticed conflicts between 2 team members, the MM and the EE. They were debating about why to include one component in the official BOM and discarding another one.

To understand their perspectives, I spoke with them separately in a friendly environment. The MM was frustrated because the EE didn’t provide any data or argument to discard the component that the MM suggested. This component had the same performance, was pin to pin compatible, and cheaper. On the other hand the EE explained he had bad experiences in the past with the component suggested by the MM and he refused to validate and qualify it to do not waste his time.

So… After being clear about the situation, I brought them together for a discussion and I emphasize to focus on the issue, not in personal discrepancies. Do, during the meeting, I encouraged both to consider the Project requirements, customers need and I worked with them brainstorming session.

Then, they agreed to meet with other stakeholders to get their inputs about these 2 components, they commit on a validation plan including both components. The one suggested by the EE as POR and the one suggested by the MM as alternate. They also agree to allocate 60% of the mass production volume to the EE component and 40% to the component suggested by the MM.

From my side, to ensure progress, I scheduled follow-up meetings with them to monitor their collaboration and for sure, I offered my support. Finally, both components are currently part of the product official BOM and these 2 guys improved their working relationship and communication.