The most comprehensive bank Interview Answer Review tooling available online.

I was managing organization wide restructuring program where goal was to map all resources with their delivery accounts to keep a track of account’s PnL and manage capability as cost centre. We also intended to design KRA and KPIs for each individual level to make our Performance Assessment data driven and transparent. This was a big change at employee level at professional and emotional level too. It meant changes in their reporting structures, extra reporting and performance management by all managers, clear KPIs alignment and selection.

Planning Level: We identified all the major business account heads, capability and other function head and organized a communication platform to make them aware and comfortable with the changes. We undertook their inputs on pros and cons and some caution to be exercised

Execution Level: We started executing these changes with L0 level employees and moved up to leadership team. Along the way we encountered some risks and outlier conditions to be managed.

Communication Strategy: We worked with all business and functional heads on our communication strategy to reach out to all the employees. Head multiple events and workshops to discuss the changes.

Data Platform changes: Evaluated all the data platform changes required and planned a phased out approach to bring those changes in the system as well.

However, when we were about to reach closure of this program, I realized that I have made a big mistake of readiness of our existing platforms to support all the changes required and existing data integrity. It really took a toll on everyone involved to clear up data accuracy before the changes could be introduced.

When I joined my new team , I took lead on a new project which was complex in nature, had many unknowns and our team had to work on new framework, techstack, data models. The team was following agile methodology and will start with the work in first sprint. there was no concept of zero sprint or story grooming prior to the start of first sprint.

with the existing approach I envisioned some issues:

1. Because the number of unknown were high, the chances of doing wrong estimations for development were high.

2. There were high chances that the prioritisation is not right and we might have to revisit the features again and again.

3.  We might find out about unknowns while we are in the development process and that might cause delays.

To overcome these issues, I suggested some changes in our approach:

1. Increase the planning for one more release cycle and group the features as now, next and later.

2. For the features planned in the now group , prioritise them for the next release and complete the research and PRDs for them one sprint early. That means dev and QA will have 2 weeks extra to go through the stories, find out the dependencies and share the feedback. This helped in identifying if we need POCs for any feature or we can right away start developing them. Or if further modularisation is required.

3. I suggested to track the features related to new project in a different group, because to begin with the pace of the delivery will be slow.

When we begin, we took one complete release only in the RnD and understanding the new framework and doing small POCs to validate our understanding.

From second release, when we as a team were ready with good understanding on the expectations and other tech dependencies we started delivering and we could complete 2 full flows from end to end.

We had very less amount of spillover and could complete almost everything in the backlog, which was a big issue in earlier releases.