Evaluate Smart Glass Developer candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical depth, work that shipped, diagnosis under uncertainty, and working across the org. Technical depth leads at 35%, so check depth in switchable glazing stacks: electrochromic tungsten oxide layers, PDLC and SPD films, sputtered low-E coatings, busbar design, drive voltage curves and switching. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.
engineering applied sciencedynamic glazingelectrochromicpdlc filmthin film coating
TL;DR
For technical depth, look for evidence the candidate explains EC layer chemistry, ion transport limits and drive electronics, with measured switching times, haze and visible transmittance ranges. For work that shipped, look for evidence the candidate names shipped panel sizes, production yields and installed projects, including warranty returns and the design change that reduced them.
Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework
What to assess and how to score it
Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Technical depth
35% weight
Check depth in switchable glazing stacks: electrochromic tungsten oxide layers, PDLC and SPD films, sputtered low-E coatings, busbar design, drive voltage curves and switching kinetics.
Evidence to listen for
Explains the physics or mechanism behind their work, not just the tooling
Names the standards, tolerances, and constraints they designed against
Can defend a design decision under follow-up questions
Distinguishes what they personally engineered from what the team delivered
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot explain the fundamentals of their own stated specialism.
2
Needs Improvement
Knows the vocabulary but not the underlying mechanism; struggles under follow-ups.
3
Satisfactory
Solid working knowledge for the role; depth thins out on edge cases.
4
Very Good
Strong command of the domain; explains trade-offs and defends decisions well.
5
Excellent
Explains EC layer chemistry, ion transport limits and drive electronics, with measured switching times, haze and visible transmittance ranges.
02
Evaluation factor
Work that shipped
30% weight
Probe products that reached glazing lines: laminated IGU builds, ASTM E2141 durability cycles, EN 1279 seal testing, façade pilots, yield per square metre and field failure rates.
Evidence to listen for
Names specific programmes, parts, or systems that reached production or field use
States their own scope inside the project
Can give measured outcomes: yield, cycle time, cost, failure rate
Explains what went wrong and what they changed
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No delivered work; experience is coursework, lab-only, or purely observational.
2
Needs Improvement
Contributed to projects but cannot say what shipped or what their part was.
3
Satisfactory
Has delivered real work; outcomes described without numbers.
4
Very Good
Names shipped work and their scope, with some measured results.
5
Excellent
Names shipped panel sizes, production yields and installed projects, including warranty returns and the design change that reduced them.
03
Evaluation factor
Diagnosis under uncertainty
20% weight
Test how they chased defects: edge seal delamination, iris effect, non-uniform tinting, busbar corrosion, moisture ingress, using EIS, spectrophotometry and accelerated weathering data.
Evidence to listen for
Describes a real failure they chased to root cause
Shows a method: isolate variables, reproduce, measure, eliminate
Distinguishes correlation from cause
Says what they ruled out and why, not only what the answer turned out to be
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No diagnostic method; guesses or escalates immediately.
2
Needs Improvement
Trial and error with no structure; cannot explain how they narrowed the cause.
3
Satisfactory
Reasonable method on familiar problems; less structured on novel ones.
4
Very Good
Clear systematic approach with a real root-cause story.
5
Excellent
Walks through a real defect from field complaint to root cause, citing EIS or cross-section evidence rather than guesswork.
04
Evaluation factor
Working across the org
15% weight
Assess work with façade consultants, architects, controls integrators and BMS or KNX teams, plus coordination with laminators, tempering lines and building code reviewers.
Evidence to listen for
Explains technical constraints to non-technical stakeholders without condescension
Has negotiated scope, cost, or timeline with manufacturing, product, or suppliers
Documents decisions so others can act on them
Takes review feedback without defensiveness
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot communicate outside their specialism; dismissive of other functions.
2
Needs Improvement
Communication gaps cause rework; avoids stakeholder contact.
3
Satisfactory
Works adequately with other teams; documentation is thin.
4
Very Good
Communicates clearly across functions; reliable collaborator.
5
Excellent
Describes translating architect tint targets into controller logic and manufacturing tolerances agreed with the laminator and glazing contractor.
Evidence-led prompts
Interview questions for a Smart Glass Developer
Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.
01
Can you describe your experience developing software for head-worn devices?
02
Have you developed applications for specific industries using these devices?
03
Which hardware platforms have you worked with?
04
How do you approach optimising performance on these devices?
05
Can you discuss a project where you used computer vision on these devices?
