Describe a situation where you had to mediate a disagreement between the hardware and software teams over the implementation of a new peripheral interface, ensuring the project stayed on schedule.

STAR framework: Situation – brief context; Task – what you needed to achieve; Action – step‑by‑step conflict‑resolution strategy (communication, technical evaluation, stakeholder alignment); Result – measurable outcome. 120‑150 words, no narrative fluff.

During a firmware upgrade for a new automotive sensor, the hardware team proposed a proprietary SPI interface to meet strict latency requirements, whereas the software team argued that a standard I2C bus would simplify driver development and reduce bugs. I facilitated a cross‑functional workshop, first clarifying each side’s constraints: the hardware team highlighted the 5 µs turnaround needed for real‑time data, while the software team pointed out the limited I2C bandwidth and driver maturity. I introduced a quick prototyping phase using a shared DMA channel to evaluate both protocols under realistic load. After presenting the results—SPI met latency but increased power draw, I2C was power‑efficient but exceeded timing—both teams agreed on a hybrid approach: use I2C for configuration and a DMA‑based burst mode for data. This compromise kept the sprint on track, cut integration time by 30%, and fostered a collaborative culture between the teams.