The most comprehensive bank Interview Answer Review tooling available online.

With a major product launch on the horizon, expecting to triple the user load. The infrastructure was non-optimized for demand and incident response was non-harmonious across teams with no set process.

As the SRE Manager, I'd have to implement project changes to infrastructure to accommodate high availability and scalability. I discovered a long-standing issue surrounding incident response and observability that would make it all the more difficult to achieve reliability under pressure and peak traffic.

Therefore, instead of fulfilling the project requirements as presented, I became an advocate for change across the organization. I established an observability platform with 100% stack coverage, created custom SLOs/SLIs/error budgets to enhance performance and reliability visibility, drafted and socialized an incident management playbook across the company and held hands-on trainings for all respective teams. In addition, I advocated for Terraform for Infrastructure as Code to help with deployment time and held FinOps reviews to help eliminate redundant costs in cloud spend.

As a result, we did not only survive the 3X traffic upon product launch with zero critical incidents, but we also achieved 15% saves the following years in cloud costs and 40% faster deployments. Many of the processes I created were adopted as company-wide best practices.

In my current role, there was a time when operation and engineering team was not aligned which was causing lots of delays during deployment. as per operation team build should be deployed in same branch which was available on pre-prod but as we were running multiple projects/features parallelly. it was difficult to develop and test everything in one branch and made it ready for deployment in a short time.

I had to work with my team (engineering team) and operational team to come up with a solution where we both are aligned and can reduce delivery time as well.

Initially i had proposed a solution when we were developing and testing work on feature branch and once its fully tested by QA on feature branch we push all changes to staging branch where we can do final testing. for some time this approach worked but we start facing new issue which is related to code merge as after merge features were impacting each other and require additional time to fix those issues and make it ready within planned time.

We added one more process if features/fixes are small and won't impact much then we merge else we try to plan deployment sequentially to avoid any further delay. 

This approach helped team to deliver project/feature on time and operational team was happy as they don't need to keep track of multiple branches during deployment.

I was working on the large scale entrprise wide program that included multiple teams and stakeholders .During the initial phase of the program on discussion with Business stakeholders , Product Management team , PO , Tech SME to determine the scope of program , prioritization & aligning on the business objectives  and tech objectives there was multiple discussion and it was tough to get the agreement due to multiple people having conflicting agenda and need .  I received the feedback that there was lot of time being wasted and people are not aligning on the subject . This led me to reflect back and breakdown the work and structure of how we were approaching  the topics to be discussed & limiting to the required audience and building a steering committee that will be a small set of devision makers representing from business stakeholders , Product management , Technology team additional I also prepped the teams offline on the discussion topics and things they need to come prepared so that our meeting agenda is clear an we can effectively discuss and prioritize on the scope due to the initial prep work done offline . This helped me in always being open for feedback and being adaptive to the ongoing situation and doing initial ground work so that there is clear and effective communication transparency

So I'd say the time I took the risk was, I actually went against the recommendation of my manager. Not directly, but essentially I was put on a project at Niagara and I was looking at a lot of the contract amendments and I analyzed our contract negotiation with Uber. And so as I was looking at the whole data, trying to see the discrepancies and really seeing, okay, what lanes should we negotiate, seeing what are the terms of negotiation that we should use, and then finally, I wanted to also forecast on terms of a long-term growth. So not just necessarily for just this term, but see how that would last for the future quarters as well. So kind of taking those into consideration while I put them all out into a matrix and showed the team, the director, and a lot of my team was thinking that we should go with the option that saves us the most amount of money. I'll put the $700,000 to $800,000 for the quarter, implementing this new amendment that I actually disagreed. And I suggested we just take somewhere closer to about the $600,000 range because for two reasons, one, I noticed that the lanes that we included in the $600,000 would lead to better client relations with Uber as a long-term and one of our biggest carriers. And two, I also noticed that in the long run, we actually would save a little more just because in the future quarters with seasonality to keep into account, those lanes were not always going to save us the most amount of money. So maybe while the $700,000 to $800,000 option would save us that much in the first quarter, when it comes down to the winter, it would save us only about $300,000 versus the $600,000 option is a little more consistent throughout the seasons. And so we actually noticed that in terms of a long-term growth for the year, we would save a lot more. So that was a time where I kind of took a risk to go against and maybe recommend something slightly different than my manager. But I think the director, when he heard me say these things, he took those into consideration and saw my analysis and saw that I was able to back up kind of my decisions and this type of risk to making sure I'm minimizing it as much as possible. So I think that was something that he really appreciated and that the VP of supply chain ended up deciding to work towards.

בתקופת התיכון התנדבתי בבית ספר לחינוך מיוחד בשם "אל-נור". בחרתי להתנדב שם בעקבות חוויה אישית עם קרוב משפחה, שלימדה אותי עד כמה חשוב להעניק תשומת לב ותמיכה מתאימה לתלמידים עם צרכים מיוחדים. בנוסף, זהו בית ספר קטן עם צוות מצומצם, כך שראיתי בכך הזדמנות לקחת חלק משמעותי ולהשפיע. הגעתי להתנדבות פעם בשבוע, עזרתי לתלמידים באופן אישי, העברתי תכנים לימודיים דרך משחקים בקבוצות יחד עם המורים, וסייעתי בארגון וסידור הכיתה אחרי שהתלמידים הלכו לישון. לפני שהתחלתי, חששתי שלא אצליח להתחבר לתלמידים או להיות מספיק מעורב. בנוסף, לכל תלמיד היו צרכים שונים, ולכן היה עליי ללמוד מהמורים כיצד לגשת לכל אחד – אם הוא על הספקטרום האוטיסטי, עם תסמונת דאון, או עם צרכים מיוחדים אחרים. בהתחלה צפיתי במורים, התייעצתי איתם ולמדתי איך הם ניגשים לכל תלמיד לפי צרכיו, וזה נתן לי ביטחון להתחיל לפתח קשרים בעצמי לשמחתי, עם הזמן גיליתי שרובם קיבלו אותי בשמחה, למדתי לקרוא סימנים לא מילוליים, להבין מה גורם להם להרגיש בנוח, ולהתאים את הגישה שלי כך שירגישו נתמכים ומובנים. נהניתי מהאינטראקציה איתם, וזכיתי בתחושת סיפוק עמוקה