The most comprehensive bank Interview Answer Review tooling available online.

During my career I manage a large number of projects, but one of the most challenging ones was the development and launch of a Telematic Control Unit for an important car maker in Japan. The project is important to me due to technical challenges we faced, the skills I applied and the impact on the company.

As Program manager my role was to lead a cross-functional team including Design Engineers, SW Engineers, Operations teams, Material procurement teams, quality and logistics, among others to successfully launch the product to mass production.

First, I kicked-off the project. For that, I shared with the team the project scope, the goals to achieve, I shared the project plan with key milestones and defined the roles and responsibilities for the different team members.

During execution, to maintain a clear communication, I set up design review sessions with the entire engineering organization to ensure everyone was aligned and fixing potential issues in advance. Besides, I led a weekly core-team meeting where we assigned tasks to team members, and setting clear deadlines for each task. To make these tasks easier to manage, I made sure tasks were broken down into manageable sizes with clear descriptions and acceptance criteria. This helped the team to stay focus on their deliveries and maintain speed.

Another important part was to manages Risks. I worked with the team to identify and classify possible risk that might impact to the project deliverables. We defined a Risk matrix to monitor during the development process, and also a project board with the main KPIs to achieve during each stage of the project.

To ensure quality, we defined different testing processes focused on the design, and the process. We installed specific quality check for the documents and devices delivered for each of the milestones of the PDP, as well as a clear quality control in mass production.

Finally, for transparency, I reported on monthly basis to our company leaders and customer about the project status, focusing on Timing, cost, quality and scope.

By employing these strategies, we successfully launched our module on time matching with all the requirements defined by our customer. This was a great example of teamworking, and taught me the importance of breaking down large projects into smaller and easy to manage pieces. Transparent and clear communication was also a great lesson learned. This approach helped me to improve in leading teams through complex problems.

I am pretty passionate about Reddit. In a world where media is biased and polarized, Reddit threads gives me a sense of how local communities view the world. It helps me get grounded in reality of what different cadres of people are thinking by browsing different communities. Reddit is very engaging, as in, you can comment and instantly receive feedback. While there is a lot of "internet hate" and "misinformation" in Reddit communities and threads as well, looking at a wider spectrum of communities within Reddit, especially the differing ones, helps you form a less polarized and biased opinion. I prefer contributing by asking open-ended questions and if I have an opinion, posting it respectfully as a question. I also respond to scientific minded questions that I have qualifications to answer. By selectively responding and answering questions with some due diligence, I keep the communities I am a part of thriving and truth-based.

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

To earn trust within a team, I believe it’s important to start with a small, achievable task and deliver a high-quality result on time. Once I’ve proven that I can deliver reliably, I gradually take on more complex tasks, building credibility along the way.

Equally important is asking the right questions and actively participating as a team member. At XYZ, when I joined a new team, I gained trust by ensuring that we only committed to tasks we could realistically deliver. Once we met our goals, I took the initiative to showcase our accomplishments to leadership, highlighting the team’s impact and visibility.

By consistently delivering results and advocating for the team, I was able to earn the trust of both my teammates and leadership.

The last conference I attended was the Open Source Security Foundation. As I was leading the Dart & Flutter security program I wanted to learn about the innovations, tooling and services that other open source projects were using.

There were interesting conferences for tooling to sign artifacts with a single command and how the open source community was working in tooling to build, sign and release artifacts in a secure way for everyone using GitHub.

I learned that there were many technical innovations that I could use to speed up the Flutter Security Program, for example implementing secure build workflows using github actions. I also met several people working on similar projects and took the opportunity to share our lessons learned and challenges. Later on the connections with the open source security foundation proved very useful during technical reviews and collaborations.

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.

In the first company I worked as tech lead, even though my performance rating was good, I received a 360 degree feedback on my interpersonal skills as well. One of them said that I sounded a bit rude in couple of discussions. When I asked for the instances, I got examples where I got the feedback from and not whom. So I had to explain my manager that it was not intentional and the aggressive demanding nature of mine could have been perceived as rude. But I considered the feedback and identified, corrected myself, toned down the way I speak in certain instances which made a set of teams in my org ex: production support teams reach out to me more often now for guidance. So this helped me gain valuable experience and unlock a totally different perspective in terms of collaboration with other squads in the company.

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.

Situation: During the first calibration of Non-Maturity Deposit (NMD) models, I was working with a senior colleague and a consultancy firm to implement these models. At that time, market rates were rising, and the consultancy firm suggested calibrating a key parameter, the "beta," to be highly sensitive to market rates. My manager agreed, but I disagreed, as I believed this high sensitivity could lead to inaccurate estimations in future calibrations.

Action: I engaged in discussions with my manager and the consultancy firm to fully understand their reasoning. They argued that a more sensitive beta could improve management of metrics like Delta EVE and Delta NII, which was valid. However, I pointed out that we lacked sufficient evidence to support such a high beta and that it might cause issues in future estimations. To address the disagreement, I conducted a sensitivity analysis, testing the model under various market rate scenarios.

Result: The sensitivity analysis helped us reach a compromise. We agreed to lower the beta, ensuring more stability in the model's performance. This adjustment allowed for a smoother transition of the parameter, ultimately improving the model's reliability while maintaining good risk management practices.