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.

During my tenure at Cisco, I participated in a project where I collaborated with a devops team and testing team to accomplish the resource allocation . At the end of the project, each intern received an evaluation from our direct supervisor. I was surprised to find that my performance rating was lower than I expected, given the contributions I felt I had made.

Task:I wanted to understand the basis for the rating and felt it was important to clarify any discrepancies between my self-assessment and the supervisor’s perception. My goal was to maintain a positive relationship while advocating for the work I had done.

Action:I requested a brief, one-on-one meeting with my supervisor. In that meeting, I calmly listened to their feedback to understand their perspective fully. Then, I shared specific examples of my contributions:

• How I had taken the lead on documenting the current resource allocation and new resource allocation based on my experience.

• My involvement in proper resource allocation resulted in 25% reduction of P1 issues due to resource allocation.

• The additional responsibilities I took on to get all resource approvals and helm script changes went unnoticed.

I also provided the documentation and metrics I’d been tracking to illustrate the impact of my work. By centering the conversation on factual evidence and outcomes, I was able to highlight aspects of my contribution that might have been overlooked initially.

Result:After reviewing these points, my supervisor acknowledged that some of my behind-the-scenes work wasn’t fully visible to them.  we agreed to have more frequent check-ins going forward. This experience taught me the value of proactive communication and documentation, ensuring that both my manager and I have a clear view of my responsibilities and achievements.