Had to complete a form after a lengthy discussion with a recruiter. The form was limiting; struck me as an attempt for data analysis and keyword searches. The form had questions regarding management strategies and business intelligence.

Phone interview with recruiter/HR. Video conference with two persons in group doing the hiring - each one separately. Face to face interview over dinner with both persons in group doing hiring. Offer letter. Negotiations on terms. Second offer letter. Negotiations on terms in 2nd offer letter failed. The sticking point was intellectual property (IP). AECOM sought ownership of all IP I had developed or will develop while employed. I code for clients and in my spare time for my passion projects. I got some leniency on those terms but they still required disclosure of all IP I had ever developed or develop in my garage while employed, which I refused. I offered alternative terms that would give AECOM license to anything developed for AECOM or their clients, but they refused. Their non-moonlighting terms were so restrictive I could not sit on the board of directors of my friend's non-profit organization, so I suggested less restrictive terms so I could continue to participate in community activities related to my profession. After 8 months of interviews and negotiations, after I sent a redline markup of the terms in their 2nd offer letter back to them for discussion, they elected to move on to interview others who would probably not have issue with the AECOM standard IP and non-moonlighting terms without any further discussion with me over the redlines I sent. Overall the process was quite frustrating. AECOM is well known as a revolving door organization for top-line staff with business development goals. I know a dozen ex-VPs who were let go over the last several years. Given that reputation, seeking to own anything any employee has invented, thought of inventing, or invents in their spare time while employed seems rather egregious and unnecessary. AECOM is not an R&D company or a product company investing in product R&D. They are an engineering consulting company doing plans, designs, analyses, construction management of infrastructure. They basically sell engineering and science professional labor hours. Someone in their C-suite may aspire to become an R&D company or market software products developed on the job, but in my experience, turning that corner is generally not feasible given the number of competitors already in the R&D and engineering software spaces whose core competencies are in those areas. Thus, walking away from a negotiation because your candidate wants to continue tinkering in their garage and participating on boards of local non-competing infrastructure engaged organizations is a shame and limits the talent the firm will ultimately bring and retain within its organization.