Interview guides · Doka

Doka Software Engineer Interview Guide

Doka Software Engineer interview guide: reported rounds, questions and how candidates describe the process.

The 60-second brief

At Doka, a Software Engineer occupies a critical intersection between high-stakes construction engineering and digital innovation. As a global leader in formwork solutions, Doka relies on its engineering talent to bridge the gap between physical infrastructure and the software tools that make such massive projects possible. You will not just be writing code; you will be building the digital backbone that enables construction professionals to execute complex designs safely and efficiently. This role is pivotal in maintaining the technological edge of the Umdasch Group. You will contribute to products that manage structural calculations, site logistics, and BIM (Building Information Modeling) integrations. Because Doka operates in over 58 countries, your work has the potential to influence how some of the world’s most impressive construction projects are planned and delivered.

This guide is scoped to a Software Engineer candidate at Doka.

Focus areas

Structural Engineering Principles
Formwork Design
AutoCAD

The Doka interview process

Doka candidates report 3 rounds over 3-5 weeks. The stages below are what candidates describe, not a published process.

Recruiter Screen

Initial contact with a recruiter to assess your background and fit for the role.

What to demonstrate

Initial contact with a recruiter to assess your background and fit for the role
Depth in Structural Engineering Principles

How to prepare

Be able to walk your CV end to end in two minutes, and say why this company specifically.
Have your salary expectations, notice period and location constraints ready, and ask for the rest of the loop in writing.

Deep-Dive Discussions

In-depth discussions with team leaders and technical managers about your past projects and technical stack.

What to demonstrate

In-depth discussions with team leaders and technical managers about your past projects and technical stack
Depth in Structural Engineering Principles

How to prepare

Answer aloud and timed: What is your experience with CAD software or similar design-oriented tools?
Answer aloud and timed: How do you ensure your code or technical designs adhere to safety and regulatory standards?

Technical Assessment

Evaluation of your practical skills related to the construction industry and your ability to work in a collaborative team.

What to demonstrate

Evaluation of your practical skills related to the construction industry and your ability to work in a collaborative team
Depth in Structural Engineering Principles

How to prepare

Answer aloud and timed: Given a basic static model, how would you demonstrate the distribution of forces to support points?
Answer aloud and timed: How would you architect a solution for a system that requires high availability?

Where candidates lose points

Own your projects

Be prepared to dive deep into the specific architecture of a project you’ve worked on. Understand not just the "how," but the "why" behind your design choices.

Practice your narrative

Use the STAR method (Situation, Task, Action, Result) to structure your behavioral answers. This helps you stay concise and impactful.

Show curiosity

Ask questions about how the engineering team at Doka stays updated on new construction technologies. This shows you are engaged with the industry.

Questions & practice

Track a rolling failure rate per destination for circuit decisions

Easy · sliding window · ring buffer · circuit breaker

The egress service delivers about 1,500 webhooks per second across roughly 40,000 destinations, each call bounded by a 10 second timeout. Maintain, per destination, the failure rate over the trailing 60 seconds so a caller can ask before dispatch whether the circuit should open. Attempts arrive as (destination_id, finished_at_ms, outcome). Requirement: amortised O(1) per attempt, with total memory bounded by the destination count rather than by traffic. Give the structure, its exact memory, and the rule that stops a destination with three attempts from opening a circuit.

Approach

Name the exact-deque version and then reject it as the default. Holding timestamps and advancing a tail pointer past anything older than now minus 60 seconds is a correct two-pointer window at amortised O(1) per attempt, but its memory tracks in-window traffic, so one destination in a retry storm holds hundreds of thousands of entries while thousands of quiet destinations hold none.
Use a ring of 60 one-second buckets per destination, each bucket a pair of counters for attempts and failures. On an attempt, advance the ring by the elapsed whole seconds, zeroing at most min(elapsed, 60) buckets, then increment the head. That is amortised O(1) with a fixed footprint per destination.
State the footprint: 60 buckets times two 4-byte counters is 480 bytes of payload per destination, so 40,000 destinations is roughly 20 to 25 MB with per-entry overhead, bounded by the catalogue rather than by the rate. The cost is granularity, since the oldest bucket ages out in whole seconds, which is far tighter than the decision needs.
Require a minimum sample before the circuit may open. A destination with three attempts and three failures reads as 100 percent and is not evidence; a floor of roughly 20 attempts in the window makes the ratio meaningful, and below that floor use a run of consecutive failures as the trigger instead.

Follow-up

The fleet is 30 instances and each sees roughly a thirtieth of a destination's traffic. Where does the rate actually live, and what does a per-instance answer get wrong?
A destination answers in 9.5 seconds and succeeds. It is not failing but it is consuming your per-destination concurrency. What signal should open the circuit here?

Canonicalise a request body into a stable idempotency fingerprint

Medium · parsing · canonicalisation · hashing

idempotency_key.request_fingerprint is a SHA-256 over the method, path and canonicalised body, and a retry whose fingerprint differs must be rejected with 422 rather than served the stored response. Write the canonicaliser. Bodies are JSON up to 256 KB nested at most 32 levels; clients vary key order, whitespace and unicode escaping, and some send 64-bit ids as JSON numbers. Produce a deterministic byte string such that semantically identical bodies match and any semantic difference does not. State your complexity and name two normalisations you refuse to perform.

Approach

Parse once into a tree, then re-serialise under fixed rules: object keys sorted, array order preserved, one escaping convention, no insignificant whitespace. Parsing is O(n) and sorting keys is O(k log k) per object, so O(n log n) overall with O(depth) stack, and the 32-level cap is enforced during parsing because hostile nesting is how a canonicaliser becomes a stack overflow.
Sort keys by their UTF-8 bytes and say why the obvious implementation is wrong in some runtimes: a default string comparison that orders by UTF-16 code units places surrogate pairs, meaning code points from U+10000 up, below U+E000 to U+FFFF, which is not UTF-8 byte order, so two services written in different languages disagree on the same document.
Do not re-encode numbers through a double. IEEE-754 binary64 represents integers exactly only up to 2^53, so normalising a 19-digit id through a float changes it, and 1 against 1.0 cannot be reconciled without deciding whether they are the same value. Preserve the literal token, and require ids as strings at the API boundary if you want them comparable.
Reject duplicate keys rather than picking one. JSON permits them and parsers disagree, most keeping the last, so any choice you make ties the fingerprint to a parser detail that the code handling the request does not necessarily share.

Follow-up

A client sends the same logical request with an extra field your API ignores. Same key, different fingerprint, so you return 422. Is that the right answer?
Where does the fingerprint get computed relative to request decompression and the body-size limit?

Collapse a redelivered event batch into per-aggregate high-water marks

Easy · hashing · at-least-once · aggregation

You drain a batch of up to 5,000,000 events, each (aggregate_id BIGINT, aggregate_version INT, event_type, payload). The log guarantees order within one aggregate only; the batch merges 64 partitions, and a relay failover has redelivered a range, so an older version for an aggregate can appear after a newer one. Given a map of last_applied_version per aggregate, produce the events worth applying, at most one per (aggregate_id, version), plus the count discarded. Target O(n) time. State the memory for 2,000,000 distinct aggregates and what you do when it does not fit.

Approach

One pass, one hash map from aggregate_id to the highest version kept, and a discard counter. An event whose version is at or below last_applied_version for its aggregate is dropped without further work, which is the whole reason the event carries its version rather than a delta. O(n) expected time, O(d) space in distinct aggregates.
Keep the maximum, never the last occurrence. The redelivered range means the final appearance of an aggregate in the batch can be an older version than one seen earlier in the same batch, so last-wins applies stale state over newer state and the projection regresses with no error anywhere.
Cost the memory instead of calling it large: an 8-byte key plus a 4-byte version is 12 bytes of payload, and an open-addressed table held at a 0.7 load factor costs roughly 17 bytes per entry before per-slot metadata, so 2,000,000 aggregates is tens of megabytes in a native layout and several times that in a runtime that boxes both key and value.
If the distinct set exceeds memory, partition on hash(aggregate_id) mod P and reduce each partition independently. Every event for one aggregate hashes to the same partition, so the per-partition result is exact and the merge is concatenation rather than a second reduction.

Follow-up

The payload is a patch rather than a snapshot, so applying only the highest version loses the intermediate changes. What changes in your reduction?
How do you detect that version 7 arrived while version 6 was never delivered, and what should the consumer do about the gap?

Why do you want to join Doka?

Medium · Behavioral and Cultural Alignment

Approach

Name the grain you start from and join outward from it.
Check whether any join is one-to-many before aggregating, or the sums inflate.
Say which index the query would use, and what makes it unusable.
Handle the rows that do not match: that is usually the actual question.

Follow-up

How does the query change if that join becomes one-to-many?
What happens to this when the table is ten times larger?

Find version gaps and relay lag with window functions

Medium · window functions · event tables · frame semantics

outbox_event holds event_id, aggregate_type, aggregate_id, aggregate_version, event_type, payload, status ('pending','published','dead'), attempts, created_at, published_at. A projection is missing rows and you must decide whether the relay skipped events or the consumer dropped them. Write three queries over the last seven days: one listing every aggregate_id whose published aggregate_version sequence has a hole, one giving per-day counts with a running total, and one returning the newest published event per aggregate. For each, say where the window function is evaluated relative to WHERE and LIMIT. PostgreSQL 16.

Approach

Gaps: compute lead(aggregate_version) OVER (PARTITION BY aggregate_id ORDER BY aggregate_version) in a subquery, then filter next_version <> aggregate_version + 1 in the outer query. Window functions are evaluated after WHERE, GROUP BY and HAVING and before the outer ORDER BY and LIMIT, so the predicate cannot sit in the same WHERE clause and PostgreSQL 16 has no QUALIFY.
Say what the seven-day filter does to the answer: it truncates every partition, so the first row per aggregate has no predecessor inside the window and a hole spanning the boundary is invisible. Widen the window, or join to resource.version as the authority for the true maximum.
Running total: SELECT date_trunc('day', created_at) AS d, count() AS n, sum(count()) OVER (ORDER BY date_trunc('day', created_at) ROWS UNBOUNDED PRECEDING). An aggregate inside a window call is legal because grouping runs before windowing. The grouping key is unique per row here so ROWS and RANGE agree, but write the frame anyway — over ungrouped rows with tied timestamps the default RANGE frame pulls in every peer row and the total jumps.
Newest per aggregate: DISTINCT ON (aggregate_id) ... ORDER BY aggregate_id, aggregate_version DESC is the cheap PostgreSQL-only form when an index matches that order; row_number() OVER (PARTITION BY aggregate_id ORDER BY aggregate_version DESC) = 1 is the portable form and needs a subquery for the same evaluation-order reason as the gap query.

Follow-up

Relay failover redelivers events. Does a duplicate break the gap query, and how would you detect one from this table alone?
Turn the gap check into a continuous monitor rather than a query someone runs after an incident. What does it watch?

Can you explain how you approach database management within a project lifecycle?

Medium · Technical and Domain Knowledge

Approach

Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
Work from the requirement backwards to the design.

Follow-up

What assumption would you test first?
How would you know your answer was wrong?

How do you ensure your code or technical designs adhere to safety and regulatory standards?

Medium · Technical and Domain Knowledge

Approach

Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
Work from the requirement backwards to the design.

Follow-up

What assumption would you test first?
How would you know your answer was wrong?

Given a basic static model, how would you demonstrate the distribution of forces to support points?

Medium · Problem-Solving and Engineering Fundamen

Approach

Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer contains.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
Work from the requirement backwards to the design.

Follow-up

What assumption would you test first?
How would you know your answer was wrong?

How would you architect a solution for a system that requires high availability?

Medium · Problem-Solving and Engineering Fundamen

Approach

Fix the scope first: who calls this, how often, and what they do when it fails.
Name the read and write paths separately; they rarely have the same bottleneck.
Choose a partition key and say what query it makes expensive.
State the consistency you need, and where you are willing to be stale.

Follow-up

What breaks first when traffic grows ten times?
How does this behave when that dependency is down for an hour?

How do you troubleshoot complex technical bottlenecks in a fast-paced environment?

Medium · Problem-Solving and Engineering Fundamen

Approach

Establish what changed and when, before forming any theory.
Pick a bisection that eliminates candidates whichever way it turns out.
Check the instrumentation before believing the symptom.
Separate the trigger from the cause; the deploy is rarely the bug.

Follow-up

What would you look at first, and what would it rule out?
How would you tell a cause from a coincidence here?

Suggested practice checklist

Built from the rounds and topics Doka candidates report.

Day 1 — Map the Doka loop

Write out the reported sequence: Recruiter Screen, Deep-Dive Discussions, Technical Assessment.
For each round, write one sentence on what it is judging, from the description above, and mark the one you are least ready for.

Deliverable: A one-page map of the 3 reported rounds, with the weakest marked.

Day 2 — Work Structural Engineering Principles

Spend the session on Structural Engineering Principles, which Doka candidates report being tested on.
Write one worked example in Structural Engineering Principles and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in Structural Engineering Principles.

Day 3 — Work Formwork Design

Spend the session on Formwork Design, which Doka candidates report being tested on.
Write one worked example in Formwork Design and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in Formwork Design.

Day 4 — Work AutoCAD

Spend the session on AutoCAD, which Doka candidates report being tested on.
Write one worked example in AutoCAD and time yourself on it.

Deliverable: One timed worked example in AutoCAD.

Day 5 — Answer out loud: Technical and Domain Knowledge

Answer aloud, timed: How would you describe your experience with standard industry stacks and frameworks?
Answer aloud, timed: Can you explain how you approach database management within a project lifecycle?

Deliverable: Spoken answers to 2 reported Technical and Domain Knowledge question(s), under time.

Day 6 — Answer out loud: Problem-Solving and Engineering Fundamentals

Answer aloud, timed: Given a basic static model, how would you demonstrate the distribution of forces to support points?
Answer aloud, timed: How would you architect a solution for a system that requires high availability?

Deliverable: Spoken answers to 2 reported Problem-Solving and Engineering Fundamentals question(s), under time.

Day 7 — Answer out loud: Behavioral and Cultural Alignment

Answer aloud, timed: Why do you want to join Doka?
Answer aloud, timed: How do you handle collaboration with non-technical stakeholders or clients?

Deliverable: Spoken answers to 2 reported Behavioral and Cultural Alignment question(s), under time.

Behavioural preparation

Behavioural rounds judge the decision you made and what it cost.

How would you describe your experience with standard industry stacks and frameworks?

Medium · Technical and Domain Knowledge

Approach

Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

What would you do differently if you ran that again?
How did you know your change caused the improvement?

What is your experience with CAD software or similar design-oriented tools?

Medium · Technical and Domain Knowledge

Approach

Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

What would you do differently if you ran that again?
How did you know your change caused the improvement?

Describe a time you had to optimize a technical process to improve project performance.

Medium · Problem-Solving and Engineering Fundamen

Approach

Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

What would you do differently if you ran that again?
How did you know your change caused the improvement?

How do you handle collaboration with non-technical stakeholders or clients?

Medium · Behavioral and Cultural Alignment

Approach

Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

What would you do differently if you ran that again?
How did you know your change caused the improvement?

Describe a situation where you had to manage conflicting project requirements.

Medium · Behavioral and Cultural Alignment

Approach

Pick a story where you made the decision, not one where you watched it.
State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on the reasoning.
Give the blast radius: what could have broken, and what you measured.
Name the disagreement and how you resolved it with evidence.

Follow-up

What would you do differently if you ran that again?
How did you know your change caused the improvement?