Methodology
How we screen engineering candidates
Twelve dimensions, evaluated in sequence, before a candidate is ever presented to a client. This is the detail behind the technical screening stage of The Grid Method.
The premise
Why The Screening Framework exists
A resume tells you where someone worked. It doesn't tell you whether they can read a one-line diagram cold, hold a schedule under a live outage window, or pass a site's drug and background policy without a delay to the start date. The screening framework exists to close that gap before a candidate reaches your desk.
We built these 12 dimensions from the recurring failure points we see in engineering placements: a candidate who's technically strong but has never worked a rotating field schedule, or one with clean references but a compliance gap that surfaces during onboarding and delays a start date by weeks.
Each dimension is scored independently, and the weighting shifts depending on role type. A commissioning engineer's screen weights travel and availability heavier than a design engineer's does; a design engineer's screen weights technical review and quality scorecard heavier. The scorecard below reflects a typical weighting for a field-heavy engineering role and is adjusted per search.
This isn't a pass/fail gate at each dimension. It's a structured way to surface strengths and gaps so the hiring manager sees the full picture, not just a summary judgment.
The framework
The 12 screening dimensions
A 12-dimension screening framework covering technical review, experience, compliance, and risk, built specifically for engineering roles.
The 12 screening dimensions
- 01
Technical Review
45 to 90 minutes
- 02
Industry Experience
20 to 30 minutes
- 03
Project Experience
20 to 30 minutes
- 04
Communication
Assessed throughout the screening process
- 05
Leadership
20 to 30 minutes
- 06
Compliance
1 to 2 business days for verification turnaround
- 07
References
1 to 3 business days depending on reference availability
- 08
Availability
10 to 15 minutes
- 09
Travel
15 to 20 minutes
- 10
Soft Skills
20 to 30 minutes
- 11
Risk Assessment
15 to 20 minutes
- 12
Quality Scorecard
30 to 45 minutes
- 01
Technical Review
Confirm the candidate has direct, hands-on command of the specific systems, code sections, or software the role requires, not adjacent or supervisory-only exposure.
Typical duration: 45 to 90 minutes
Inputs
- Role technical criteria
- Candidate resume and portfolio
- Sample drawings or specs where relevant
Activities
- Structured interview on named platforms, relay families, or design tools
- Walk-through of a representative past project, focused on the candidate's specific contribution
- Scenario question tied to a task the role will actually perform
- Score depth of hands-on versus oversight-only experience
Outputs
- Technical review score
- Notes on specific gaps
What goes wrong when this stage is rushed
- Candidate describes team output as personal accomplishment without probing
- Screener lacks the technical depth to catch a surface-level answer
- 02
Industry Experience
Assess whether the candidate's background matches the operating environment of the role, since utility, data center, and manufacturing settings carry different unwritten expectations.
Typical duration: 20 to 30 minutes
Inputs
- Target industry from role profile
- Candidate work history
Activities
- Map prior employers against the target industry or a closely adjacent one
- Ask about industry-specific standards the candidate has worked under (NERC, NFPA, ISA)
- Probe understanding of the operating constraints unique to the industry (uptime requirements, regulatory audits)
Outputs
- Industry fit rating
- Notes on transferable versus direct experience
What goes wrong when this stage is rushed
- Adjacent-industry experience is scored as equivalent when the operating constraints are materially different
- 03
Project Experience
Verify the candidate has worked projects of comparable scale and complexity to the one being staffed, not just the same job title elsewhere.
Typical duration: 20 to 30 minutes
Inputs
- Project scope from Discovery
- Candidate project history
Activities
- Ask for specific project size, budget, and team scale on comparable past work
- Confirm the candidate's role on the project team (lead, contributor, reviewer)
- Check for experience with the specific project phase relevant to this hire (design, SAT/FAT, commissioning, closeout)
Outputs
- Project experience summary
- Scale-fit rating
What goes wrong when this stage is rushed
- Title inflation on prior projects goes unchecked, overstating scope of responsibility
- 04
Communication
Evaluate how clearly the candidate can explain technical decisions to both peers and non-technical stakeholders, since most engineering roles carry a client- or crew-facing component.
Typical duration: Assessed throughout the screening process
Inputs
- Role's stakeholder interface requirements
Activities
- Ask the candidate to explain a technical decision to a non-technical audience
- Assess clarity and structure of written communication in submitted materials
- Note responsiveness and clarity during scheduling and screening interactions
Outputs
- Communication rating
What goes wrong when this stage is rushed
- Strong technical answers mask weak ability to communicate with a client or crew
- 05
Leadership
For roles with supervisory or crew-lead responsibility, confirm the candidate can direct other engineers or technicians, not just perform individual technical work.
Typical duration: 20 to 30 minutes
Inputs
- Role's supervisory scope
Activities
- Ask for specific examples of directing a crew or team through a schedule-critical task
- Probe how the candidate has handled a direct report's performance issue
- Assess decision-making under conflicting priorities from multiple stakeholders
Outputs
- Leadership rating
- Notes on team size and scope led
What goes wrong when this stage is rushed
- Leadership is assumed from seniority or title without verifying direct people-management examples
- 06
Compliance
Verify all licenses, certifications, and safety training required for the role are current and issued by the stated body, closing a common source of onboarding delay.
Typical duration: 1 to 2 business days for verification turnaround
Inputs
- Role's required certifications
- Candidate-provided documentation
Activities
- Verify PE license, NETA, NFPA 70E, or other certification status against the issuing body
- Confirm expiration dates against the expected engagement length
- Check for any required background check or drug screening prerequisites specific to the site
Outputs
- Verified certification list
- Compliance clearance notes
What goes wrong when this stage is rushed
- A certification is accepted from a resume without third-party verification and turns out to be lapsed
- 07
References
Get an outside perspective on technical performance and reliability that the candidate's own interview answers can't fully provide.
Typical duration: 1 to 3 business days depending on reference availability
Inputs
- Candidate-provided reference contacts
Activities
- Contact at least one direct supervisor and one peer or crew reference
- Ask structured questions on reliability, technical accuracy, and how the candidate handled a difficult project moment
- Cross-check reference account against candidate's own description of the same project
Outputs
- Reference check summary
What goes wrong when this stage is rushed
- References are all hand-picked and favorable, with no attempt to reach an independent peer contact
- 08
Availability
Confirm the candidate's actual start-date flexibility and notice period against the project's need date before any offer conversation begins.
Typical duration: 10 to 15 minutes
Inputs
- Project need date
- Candidate's current employment status and notice period
Activities
- Confirm notice period with current employer and any contractual restrictions
- Check for scheduled time off, prior commitments, or other engagements
- Flag any gap between candidate availability and project need date early
Outputs
- Confirmed availability date
What goes wrong when this stage is rushed
- Availability is assumed rather than confirmed, and a two-week notice period surfaces after the offer is extended
- 09
Travel
For field and multi-site roles, confirm the candidate can actually sustain the travel or rotation schedule the project requires, not just says they're willing.
Typical duration: 15 to 20 minutes
Inputs
- Project travel or rotation schedule
Activities
- Confirm willingness and history of sustained travel or rotational field schedules
- Ask about prior per-diem or lodging arrangements to confirm familiarity with the model
- Check for personal constraints (family, secondary licensing state) that limit travel radius
Outputs
- Travel fit rating
What goes wrong when this stage is rushed
- Willingness to travel is taken at face value without checking track record on similar schedules, leading to early attrition
- 10
Soft Skills
Assess adaptability, problem-solving under ambiguity, and how the candidate handles feedback, traits that predict performance on unstructured field problems better than a technical score alone.
Typical duration: 20 to 30 minutes
Inputs
- Behavioral interview guide
Activities
- Ask for an example of adapting to a changed scope or schedule mid-project
- Probe how the candidate has responded to critical feedback in the past
- Assess comfort operating with incomplete information, common in field troubleshooting
Outputs
- Soft skills rating
What goes wrong when this stage is rushed
- Soft skills assessment is skipped for candidates with strong technical scores, missing a poor fit for field ambiguity
- 11
Risk Assessment
Consolidate flags from prior dimensions, employment gaps, tenure patterns, or safety incident history, into an explicit risk read before presentation.
Typical duration: 15 to 20 minutes
Inputs
- Full screening record to this point
Activities
- Review employment history for unexplained gaps or a pattern of short tenures
- Check for any disclosed safety incident or disciplinary history
- Weigh identified risks against the specific demands of the role
Outputs
- Risk assessment note
What goes wrong when this stage is rushed
- A pattern across multiple minor flags goes unaddressed because each was reviewed in isolation
- 12
Quality Scorecard
Roll every dimension into a single weighted scorecard so the hiring manager can compare candidates on a consistent basis rather than a narrative summary alone.
Typical duration: 30 to 45 minutes
Inputs
- Scores from all prior dimensions
Activities
- Apply role-specific weighting to each dimension
- Calculate composite score and flag any dimension that fell below threshold regardless of composite
- Prepare scorecard for inclusion in the client presentation
Outputs
- Completed scorecard
- Presentation-ready summary
What goes wrong when this stage is rushed
- A strong composite score masks a single disqualifying gap in one dimension, such as a lapsed certification
Quality scorecard
Screening Scorecard
A representative weighting for a field-heavy engineering role. Weights shift by role type; a design-focused search weights Technical Review and Quality Scorecard heavier and Travel lighter.
| Dimension | Weight | Evidence we require | Disqualifiers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical Review | 20% | Structured interview responses and scenario walk-through scored against named platforms or code sections | Cannot speak to hands-on work on the specific systems or software required |
| Industry Experience | 8% | Prior employer mapping and familiarity with relevant standards (NERC, NFPA, ISA) | No exposure to the operating constraints of the target industry |
| Project Experience | 10% | Confirmed scale and role on comparable past projects | Claimed project scope cannot be substantiated or role was materially overstated |
| Communication | 8% | Clarity in explaining technical decisions to a non-technical audience | Cannot explain own technical work in terms a client or crew lead would understand |
| Leadership | 8% | Specific examples of directing a crew or team through schedule-critical work | No verifiable direct-report or crew-lead experience for a role requiring it |
| Compliance | 12% | Third-party verification of license, certification, and safety training status | Required certification is lapsed, unverifiable, or misrepresented |
| References | 10% | At least one supervisor and one peer reference confirming reliability and technical accuracy | References are unreachable, refuse to confirm basic facts, or contradict candidate's account |
| Availability | 6% | Confirmed notice period and start date against project need date | Availability gap exceeds project's acceptable start window with no resolution |
| Travel | 8% | Track record of sustained travel or rotational schedules matching project requirements | No history of sustaining the required rotation and stated willingness is unverified |
| Soft Skills | 5% | Behavioral responses on adaptability and handling of ambiguous field problems | Demonstrated rigidity or inability to adjust to changed scope in past roles |
| Risk Assessment | 5% | Employment history review and disclosed incident or disciplinary history | Pattern of short tenures or unresolved safety incident history relevant to the role |
Operating principles
Rules that govern how the framework is applied
Independent scoring per dimension
Each of the 12 dimensions is scored on its own before any composite is calculated, so a strong technical score can't paper over a compliance gap.
Weighting matches the role
The scorecard weighting shifts by role type; field roles weight travel and availability heavier than design-focused roles do.
Verification, not self-report
Certifications, references, and project scope are checked against outside sources wherever possible, not accepted as written on a resume.
Disqualifiers override composite score
A high composite score doesn't clear a candidate if a single dimension hits a defined disqualifier, such as a lapsed license.
Tools
Take the framework with you
The templates we use internally, published so your team can run the same method without us.
- PDF · 16 pagesEngineering Interview ScorecardsDiscipline-specific scorecards with rating anchors tied to evidence rather than impression. Designed so two interviewers who have never met score the same candidate within a point of each other.
- PDF · 12 pagesCandidate Evaluation TemplatesThe paperwork that makes an engineering hiring decision auditable: what was verified, by whom, against what evidence, and which risks were accepted knowingly.
- PDF · 6 pagesEngineering Hiring ChecklistThe questions that must be answered before a requisition is released. Built to stop the most common cause of a failed engineering search: a role specified in job-title language rather than in systems, phase and documents.
Answers
Frequently asked questions
Question not covered here? Ask a recruiter directly - you will get a straight technical answer, not a callback from a salesperson.
Keep going
The rest of the method
Each framework governs a different part of the hiring chain. They are designed to be read together.
- The Grid MethodA 14-stage evaluation framework, split into seven qualification stages and seven delivery-and-retention stages, engineered to deliver both speed and precision on every capital program search.
- Employer Hiring FrameworkA 9-stage framework covering hiring readiness, discovery, role definition, market analysis, and retention for engineering employers.
See The Screening Framework applied to your hardest requisition
Bring the role your team has struggled to specify. The first intake session produces a written scope decomposition and a market view, whether or not you engage us for the search.
