The most comprehensive bank Interview Answer Review tooling available online.

In the Meraki integration project, the supply chain process required significant optimization of the entire flow. To achieve this, most of the shipping-related process needed to be modified. However, the team lacked sufficient time to complete the work because the planned use of an adapter did not work, requiring me to redesign the flow.

With limited time remaining before system integration testing (SIT), the cross-functional teams and other tracks were ready to test their code, and management was unwilling to postpone SIT and Cycle 1 testing. Since there was an additional round of SIT and Cycle 2 testing planned, I decided to proceed with the changes that the team had already completed. We migrated the completed code to the test instance and communicated that only Phase 1 of the changes would be released initially, while the remaining changes would be delivered during Cycle 2 testing.

I ensured the Phase 1 delivery was designed to avoid impacting the end-to-end flow, allowing the other teams to proceed with testing their portions of the code. This approach ensured that other teams' deadlines were not affected. I also informed the cross-functional teams that the OTM and GTM changes were completed, and the remaining shipping-related code optimization would be delivered before Cycle 2 testing, along with the next round of SIT.

By taking this approach, I ensured that complete testing was not impacted and that the project stayed on track.

At Center Card, where I served as Director of Technology in a fast-paced startup environment, I made the decision to deploy the ELK stack (Elasticsearch, Logstash, Kibana) on Kubernetes. Initially, everything was running smoothly, but a node replacement in the ELK cluster caused Elasticsearch to crash in our staging environment—just weeks before our production launch.

The incident put significant stress on the infrastructure team, and we didn't have deep in-house expertise to handle such issues. My CTO expressed disappointment and gave me direct feedback to ensure that similar disruptions would not happen again.

It was difficult feedback to hear, but I fully agreed with it. I realized that I had underestimated the operational complexity of managing ELK on Kubernetes without the right support or expertise.

In response, I took immediate corrective action—working closely with my team, often around the clock, to migrate to a managed Elasticsearch solution. This decision helped us stabilize the environment and stay on track for launch.

The key lesson I learned was that as a leader, I must assess not only the technical feasibility of a solution but also whether the team has the capacity and skills to support it. If not, it's critical either to choose a safer, more manageable alternative or to invest in upskilling the team before proceeding

I would like to talk about situation. When I was an engineering  manager at digital commerce platform org at Amazon, I was handling close to 11 services, and 

as part of the Rolling Stone initiative where Amazon was trying to move all its services away from Oracle, I had four services that I was trying to migrate from Oracle to the databases hosted on Azure. All my fellow colleagues who were owning services of DCP were doing similar exercise. One of the colleague who was owning digital redemption service had to go on maternity leave, and then couple of engineers earmarked to do this migration for digital redemption service wwere transition out of the organization. That is when I offered to help with the migration of the service. 

So I now had 5 services with competing  priorities where I 

had to manage very tight schedule of service migrations. Planning a very ruthless prioritization, figuring out an optimal execution path of a completely unknown service, interacting with the service upstream clients whom i had not worked with prior, working with an amalgam of My team members and the service owner team members were few of the ambiguous paths I navigated to help do on time migration completion of the   service owned by my collegues.

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.

Have a curious mind and approach with understanding. Talk to the person 1x1, see what's up and go from there.

Team is focused in new rolling out RCSA to new Srvice now platform and implementing Shift left statrtegy to eliminate reduntant hops in the implementaions and stabilize the Risk platform