Candidate interviewShared room
Question planner modeOpen the private interview-room link to record shared answers.

Terry Shephard · Interview cockpit

Choose less.
Ask better.

A focused, candidate-specific plan for a technical and projects conversation — built from Terry’s résumé, the current email thread and the method that worked when hiring George.

12questions selected
48question minutes
12recommended core
0 min bufferinside the hour

Build the conversation

Pick the questions that earn their time.

Core questions are preselected. Open any card to see why it matters, what strong evidence sounds like and where an answer may need another probe.

01MotivationOptional2 min

If your colleagues or friends had to describe you in three words, what would they say — and what work examples support those words?

Why ask it

Tests self-awareness and whether personal claims connect to observable behaviour.

Useful probes
  • Which trait becomes most visible when a job is under pressure?
Good signs

Traits backed by specific behaviour and examples, not only positive adjectives.

Watch-outs

Generic strengths, no supporting example, or an answer shaped only to impress.

Candidate evidence: Warm-up inspired by Tayla’s draft; not scored unless the answer reveals useful evidence.

02MotivationCore4 min

What are you hoping to find in your next role that you are not getting in your current one?

Why ask it

Clarifies motivation, retention risk and whether the real role matches Terry’s expectations.

Useful probes
  • Why consider moving from Piketech after less than a year?
  • Which matters most: programming, rack work, manuals, process improvement or project ownership?
Good signs

A positive, specific pull toward the role, realistic expectations and respect for the current employer.

Watch-outs

Mostly escaping Piketech, criticism without reflection, or expectations that skip the ramp-up period.

Candidate evidence: Terry joined Piketech in August 2025 and has expressed interest across several parts of the role.

03MotivationOptional3 min

Your three-to-five-year goals include owning a project end to end and eventually designing a sellable product. How would this role fit that path?

Why ask it

Checks whether Terry’s ambition can create durable value for Integratd.

Useful probes
  • What would you want to achieve in the first 12 months?
  • What would make you stay and grow here for several years?
Good signs

Credible steps, mutual value and realistic progression expectations.

Watch-outs

A vague timeline or the role being framed only as a short bridge to a separate venture.

Candidate evidence: Terry’s email lists product design, end-to-end project ownership, Cert III, cabling and 3D modelling goals.

04Project deliveryCore5 min

At Big Screen Video you managed up to five concurrent projects. Walk us through a period when projects competed for the same people, tools or deadline.

Why ask it

Fact-checks project coordination and reveals his actual prioritisation and communication system.

Useful probes
  • How did you decide what moved first?
  • How did you keep the leader and team informed?
  • What risk did you identify early, and what was the final outcome?
Good signs

Visible planning, explicit trade-offs, early escalation and a measurable delivery outcome.

Watch-outs

Heroic overtime as the only method, no leader visibility, or no real decision in the example.

Candidate evidence: Resume claim: managed up to five concurrent projects and teams of 3–6 technicians.

05Project deliveryCore4 min

Tell us about a project or workstream you personally drove from an unclear starting point to completed handover.

Why ask it

Separates Terry’s individual ownership from the wider team’s contribution.

Useful probes
  • What did you own versus what did others own?
  • How did you define done and verify quality?
  • What documentation remained after handover?
Good signs

Clear ownership, planning, quality gates, documentation and lessons learned.

Watch-outs

Repeated ‘we’ without personal responsibility, no definition of done, or no handover discipline.

Candidate evidence: Terry wants to run projects from conception to completion; this tests current depth rather than future intent.

06Process + agencyCore5 min

Your résumé says you implemented improved systems and workflows at Piketech. Choose the strongest example and take us from the original problem to the result.

Why ask it

Directly fact-checks one of the strongest and most role-relevant résumé claims.

Useful probes
  • What did you personally write, build or change?
  • How did you win buy-in from people used to the old process?
  • How was it rolled out, and how did you know it worked?
Good signs

A tangible artefact, stakeholder influence, implementation and evidence of reduced time, errors, risk or rework.

Watch-outs

Only an idea, no implementation, no colleague buy-in, or benefits that cannot be evidenced.

Candidate evidence: Resume claim at Piketech; Tayla specifically wanted this tested in depth.

07Process + agencyOptional3 min

When you are given an outcome and the tools, but little day-to-day direction, how do you turn that into a plan?

Why ask it

Tests agency and the balance between independent problem-solving and timely escalation.

Useful probes
  • What does stuck look like before you ask for help?
  • How do you avoid spending too long solving the wrong problem?
Good signs

Clarifies the outcome, plans checkpoints, time-boxes research and escalates with options.

Watch-outs

Waits passively, disappears too long without a checkpoint, or escalates problems without options.

Candidate evidence: Adapted from the agency theme used in the previous Integratd interview framework.

08Technical depthCore5 min

Describe the most complex electrical, network or control-system fault you diagnosed personally.

Why ask it

Tests real diagnostic depth, safety boundaries and whether Terry can explain technical reasoning.

Useful probes
  • What symptoms did you start with?
  • What did you test first, and why?
  • What safety or escalation limits did you apply?
  • What was the root cause and how did you prevent recurrence?
Good signs

A safe, logical diagnostic sequence, evidence-based elimination and durable corrective action.

Watch-outs

Random component swapping, weak safety limits, no evidence trail or an unclear root cause.

Candidate evidence: Resume claims complex electrical fault-finding, diagnostics and reliable delivery under pressure.

09Technical depthCore4 min

Walk us through how you would build, wire, commission and hand over a rack or integrated system so another technician can support it later.

Why ask it

Validates a stated interest and exposes actual hands-on depth, standards and serviceability habits.

Useful probes
  • What are your standards for labelling, tests, backups, drawings and manuals?
  • Where do defects usually hide at commissioning?
Good signs

Repeatability, neatness, testing, version control, documentation and supportability.

Watch-outs

Experience is observational or delegated only, testing is informal, or Australian standards are unclear.

Candidate evidence: Terry specifically listed rack building, wiring, commissioning and custom manuals as preferred work.

10Technical depthCore4 min

You know Art-Net, sACN and QSYS. When you need to learn a new automation platform quickly, what is your method?

Why ask it

Tests how existing controls and networking knowledge transfers into integrated home automation.

Useful probes
  • Give a recent example of learning something unfamiliar under time pressure.
  • How would you structure your first 30 days on an unfamiliar platform?
Good signs

A deliberate loop: concepts, lab practice, documentation, small real tasks, feedback and verification.

Watch-outs

‘I can learn anything’ without evidence, no lab method, or reliance on others to structure all learning.

Candidate evidence: Resume lists Art-Net, sACN and QSYS; Integratd requires transfer into a different automation ecosystem.

11Leadership + teamCore3 min

Your résumé lists team leadership and staff training. Tell us about one training session or on-the-job development activity you designed or led.

Why ask it

Fact-checks the claim and distinguishes structured capability-building from informal shadowing.

Useful probes
  • How did you decide what people needed to learn?
  • How did you check that learning transferred into safe, consistent work?
Good signs

A clear audience and objective, practical delivery, verification and follow-up.

Watch-outs

No learner or outcome, training was only showing once, or performance was never checked.

Candidate evidence: Resume claims team leadership, staff training and teams ranging from 3–6 to crews of 20.

12Leadership + teamCore4 min

Tell us about a time another person’s priorities were not aligned with the project or employer’s priorities.

Why ask it

Tests influence and whether Terry can protect delivery without damaging relationships.

Useful probes
  • How did it affect delivery?
  • What conversation did you have, and when did you escalate?
  • What would that person say about how you handled it?
Good signs

Curiosity before judgement, direct communication, a shared outcome and proportionate escalation.

Watch-outs

Blame, avoidance, escalating too early or no attempt to understand the other person’s constraints.

Candidate evidence: Tayla’s proposed question, refined to require a specific behavioural example.

13Leadership + teamOptional3 min

What does good leadership look like to you, and what do you need from a leader to do your best work?

Why ask it

Clarifies the environment Terry needs and how he behaves without formal authority.

Useful probes
  • How do you lead when you have responsibility but not formal authority?
Good signs

Compatible expectations, feedback maturity, clarity, accountability and support for others.

Watch-outs

Leadership described as control or status, or feedback and accountability flowing only one way.

Candidate evidence: Tayla’s draft asked for Terry’s version of good leadership.

14Client + resilienceCore4 min

Describe a time you personally dealt with a disgruntled client or stakeholder.

Why ask it

Tests client recovery, ownership, expectation-setting and follow-through under pressure.

Useful probes
  • What happened before you entered the situation?
  • What did you say and do in the moment?
  • How did you close the loop afterward?
Good signs

Calm listening, ownership without premature blame, transparent next steps and restored trust.

Watch-outs

Dismisses the client, blames others, promises before diagnosing, or cannot explain the follow-up.

Candidate evidence: Tayla’s draft question; critical for a technical role with client-facing responsibility.

15Client + resilienceOptional3 min

Tell us about a high-pressure job where your original plan did not work.

Why ask it

Tests replanning, emotional regulation and learning when conditions invalidate the original approach.

Useful probes
  • How did you communicate the change?
  • What trade-off did you make?
  • What did you learn or change afterward?
Good signs

Composure, honest communication, practical judgement and a permanent learning outcome.

Watch-outs

Overtime as the only recovery plan, missing stakeholder communication or a victim-framed story.

Candidate evidence: Resume positions Terry as reliable under pressure; this asks for proof.

16Practical alignmentCore3 min

Where are you up to in the Cert III in Electronics & Communications, and which completed or planned units are most relevant to this role?

Why ask it

Confirms technical relevance and whether work and study commitments can be planned realistically.

Useful probes
  • What does the study timetable require during normal working weeks?
  • How do you plan workload when work and study deadlines overlap?
Good signs

Specific relevant units, realistic capacity planning and early visibility of timetable needs.

Watch-outs

Cannot identify relevant units, the timetable is unclear, or foreseeable clashes are deferred.

Candidate evidence: Resume lists the Cert III as ongoing; Terry’s email says he is halfway through.

17Practical alignmentCore3 min

Can we confirm your four-week notice period, likely mid-August start, and what you mean by a $50/hour expectation?

Why ask it

Removes ambiguity around start timing, employment basis and package assumptions.

Useful probes
  • Is that figure permanent, casual or contract, and what inclusions are assumed?
  • Are there role-related licence, travel or scheduling constraints we should plan for?
Good signs

Clear assumptions, direct answers and alignment without premature negotiation.

Watch-outs

Permanent, casual and contract assumptions mixed together, unclear inclusions or unresolved constraints.

Candidate evidence: Terry stated a four-week notice period, mid-August availability and $50/hour in the email thread.

What must be true

Five claims worth validating.

  1. 01
    Project control

    Five concurrent projects meant real prioritisation, visibility and trade-offs.

  2. 02
    Process improvement

    Piketech workflow changes were personally implemented and measurably useful.

  3. 03
    Hands-on depth

    Rack, commissioning and documentation interest is backed by practical experience.

  4. 04
    Technical transfer

    Lighting, network and QSYS knowledge can move into integrated automation quickly.

  5. 05
    Durable alignment

    The role, study plan, notice period and package expectations can work together.