Interviews vs Real-World - Learning Module

Loading content...

0/246

Interview LLD — Time-Constrained, Focused Scope

The 45-Minute Design Challenge

You're sitting across from a senior engineer. They slide a laptop toward you and say: "Design a parking lot system." The clock starts. You have 45 minutes to demonstrate years of object-oriented thinking, design pattern knowledge, and architectural intuition—all while thinking out loud, asking clarifying questions, and writing clean, extensible code.

This is the interview LLD experience. It's intense, artificial, and nothing like how you'd actually design a parking lot system at work over weeks or months. Yet it remains the gold standard for evaluating software design skills at top technology companies worldwide.

Understanding why interviews work this way—and how to excel within these constraints—is essential for any engineer serious about career advancement.

What You Will Learn

By the end of this page, you will understand the anatomy of an LLD interview, why companies structure them this way, and the specific skills that separate successful candidates from those who struggle. You'll see how the interview format, while artificial, actually tests real engineering competencies.

The Nature of Interview LLD

Low-Level Design interviews are fundamentally different from system design (HLD) interviews. While HLD focuses on distributed systems, scalability, and infrastructure decisions, LLD zeroes in on object-oriented design, code structure, and component-level architecture.

The interview format imposes specific constraints that shape everything about how you must approach the problem:

Interview LLD Constraints and Their Impact
Constraint	Typical Value	Impact on Approach
Time Limit	30-60 minutes	Forces prioritization; you cannot design everything
Scope Definition	Interviewer-defined	Must clarify requirements before designing
Communication	Think-aloud required	Design reasoning must be externalized
Coding Expectation	Varies by company	Some expect compilable code, others pseudocode
Whiteboard/IDE	Company-specific	Tool familiarity affects performance
Evaluation Criteria	Often unstated	You must infer what matters most

Why These Constraints Exist:

These aren't arbitrary limitations—they're designed to simulate the cognitive conditions of real engineering work at compressed timescales:

Time pressure mirrors sprint deadlines and incident response scenarios
Ambiguous requirements reflect real stakeholder communication
Think-aloud protocols reveal problem-solving processes
Scope management tests engineering judgment
Live coding demonstrates actual implementation capability

The interview doesn't expect you to build a production system. It expects you to demonstrate the thinking process that would lead to a production system—accelerated and made visible.

The Meta-Skill

The most important interview skill isn't knowing design patterns—it's calibrating depth vs. breadth in real-time. Great candidates dynamically adjust their focus based on interviewer signals, time remaining, and problem complexity.

Anatomy of an LLD Interview

A well-structured LLD interview follows a predictable pattern. Understanding this structure helps you allocate time effectively and demonstrate competency at each phase.

Phase 1: Problem Introduction (2-5 minutes)

The interviewer presents the problem, often deliberately vague:

"Design a chess game"
"Design an elevator system"
"Design a file system"

This vagueness is intentional. Your first test is recognizing that you cannot proceed without clarification.

Phase 2: Requirements Gathering (5-10 minutes)

This phase separates strong candidates from weak ones. You must:

Ask clarifying questions about scope
Identify functional requirements (what the system must do)
Identify non-functional requirements (constraints, extensibility needs)
Confirm assumptions with the interviewer
Explicitly state what you will and won't cover

Essential Clarifying Questions

•Scale Questions — "How many concurrent users/objects should the system handle?"
•Feature Scope — "Should I focus on core functionality or include edge cases like X?"
•Integration Points — "Does this system need to integrate with external services?"
•Persistence — "Should I design for in-memory only, or include data persistence?"
•Extensibility — "Are there known future requirements I should design for?"
•Platform — "Is this a backend service, a library, or a full application?"

Phase 3: High-Level Structure (5-10 minutes)

Before diving into classes, outline the major components:

Identify the core entities/objects
Define the relationships between them
Sketch the overall architecture
Identify the key interfaces

This phase demonstrates that you think structurally before coding—a hallmark of senior engineering.

Phase 4: Detailed Design (15-25 minutes)

This is the core of the interview. You'll:

Define classes with clear responsibilities
Design interfaces and contracts
Implement key methods
Apply design patterns where appropriate
Handle edge cases

Phase 5: Discussion & Extensions (5-10 minutes)

The interviewer probes your design:

"What if the requirements changed to include X?"
"How would you handle concurrency?"
"What are the tradeoffs of your approach?"

This phase tests whether you designed for the actual problem or just memorized a solution.

Common Mistake: Skipping Requirements

Many candidates jump straight to coding when they hear a familiar problem. This is a red flag. Even if you've designed a parking lot system 50 times, ask questions. The interviewer's specific constraints may differ from your practiced solution, and skipping clarification signals poor engineering habits.

Time Management Strategies

Time is your scarcest resource in an LLD interview. The difference between a successful and failed interview often comes down to how you allocate your 45 minutes.

The Fundamental Tradeoff:

You face a constant tension between depth (detailed implementation of fewer components) and breadth (skeleton implementation across more components). Neither extreme is correct—the skill is calibrating based on the specific problem and interviewer cues.

Depth-Heavy Approach

•Perfect implementation of 2-3 classes
•All edge cases handled
•Missing core functionality
•Interview ends mid-design
•Risk: Appears as tunnel vision

Breadth-Heavy Approach

•Skeleton of entire system
•No method implementations
•Relationships unclear
•No design patterns applied
•Risk: Appears as architecture astronaut

The Optimal Approach:

Successful candidates use a progressive refinement strategy:

Start broad — Identify all major components and their relationships
Prioritize depth — Implement 2-3 critical paths completely
Stub the rest — Leave clear markers for what would be extended
Time-box — Check time every 10-15 minutes and adjust

Recommended Time Allocation (45-min interview)

•Minutes 0-5: Problem understanding and clarifying questions
•Minutes 5-10: Requirements documentation and scope agreement
•Minutes 10-15: High-level design with core entities and relationships
•Minutes 15-35: Detailed implementation of priority components
•Minutes 35-45: Extensions discussion, tradeoffs, and questions

The Five-Minute Warning

When you have 5-10 minutes left, shift from implementation to consolidation. Summarize your design, highlight what you'd add with more time, and open the floor for questions. This signals professional awareness of time constraints—a trait interviewers actively look for.

What Interviewers Actually Evaluate

Understanding evaluation criteria transforms interview preparation from guesswork to strategy. While specifics vary by company, most LLD interviews assess the following dimensions:

Technical Competencies:

Technical Evaluation Dimensions
Dimension	What They're Looking For	Red Flags
OOP Fundamentals	Proper encapsulation, inheritance, polymorphism usage	Public fields everywhere, god classes, wrong relationships
Abstraction Quality	Appropriate interfaces, clean separation of concerns	Concrete dependencies, leaky abstractions, tight coupling
Design Patterns	Pattern recognition and correct application	Forcing patterns, naming without understanding, overengineering
API Design	Clean, intuitive, and consistent interfaces	Confusing method signatures, inconsistent naming, hidden side effects
Extensibility	Design that accommodates change gracefully	Brittle design, hardcoded values, violated open-closed principle
Code Quality	Readable, maintainable, idiomatic code	Magic numbers, unclear names, excessive complexity

Process Competencies:

Beyond technical skills, interviewers evaluate how you work, not just what you produce:

Behavioral Signals Interviewers Track

•Requirement Analysis — Do you clarify before coding, or assume and proceed?
•Structured Thinking — Is your approach methodical or chaotic?
•Communication — Can you explain your reasoning clearly?
•Adaptability — How do you respond to new requirements or pushback?
•Self-Awareness — Do you acknowledge tradeoffs and limitations?
•Collaboration Signals — Would you be pleasant to work with daily?

The Hidden Evaluation

Many interviewers mentally ask: "Would I want to work with this person on my team?" Technical correctness matters, but so does communication style, openness to feedback, and intellectual humility. A candidate who confidently defends a flawed design may score lower than one who acknowledges uncertainty and reasons through it.

Common Interview LLD Problems

Certain LLD problems appear repeatedly across companies. Understanding the problem archetypes helps you recognize patterns and apply appropriate solutions:

Category 1: Resource Management Systems

These problems involve managing finite resources among competing users:

Parking Lot System
Library Management System
Hotel Booking System
Movie Ticket Booking

Key Design Challenges: Availability tracking, reservation handling, conflict resolution, capacity management.

Category 2: State Machine Systems

Problems where objects transition through well-defined states:

Traffic Light Controller
Elevator System
Vending Machine
ATM Machine

Key Design Challenges: State transitions, event handling, state persistence, undo operations.

Category 3: Game Systems

Recreating classic games tests object modeling under complexity:

Chess
Tic-Tac-Toe
Snake and Ladder
Card Games (Blackjack, Poker)

Key Design Challenges: Game rules encapsulation, move validation, AI players, game state management.

Category 4: Platform Components

Building blocks of larger systems:

Logging Framework
Caching System
Rate Limiter
Task Scheduler

Key Design Challenges: Pluggability, configuration, performance considerations, thread safety.

Preparation Strategy

•Don't memorize solutions — Interviewers can tell. Instead, practice the process of designing each category.
•Focus on transferable patterns — A well-designed booking system applies to hotels, flights, and restaurants.
•Practice articulation — Design alone isn't enough; you must explain your reasoning clearly.
•Anticipate variations — Interviewers often add twists to standard problems.
•Time yourself — Practicing under time pressure is essential for calibration.

The Memorization Trap

Memorized solutions fail when interviewers add custom requirements. If your parking lot design can't adapt to motorcycle spots or handicapped spaces, your memorization becomes a liability. Practice flexible thinking, not fixed patterns.

The Think-Aloud Protocol

Perhaps the most unnatural aspect of interview LLD is the requirement to externalize your thinking. In real work, you think silently and produce results. In interviews, the thinking is the result.

Why Think-Aloud Matters:

Reveals reasoning — Correct answers from flawed reasoning are concerning
Enables guidance — Interviewers can redirect if you're going astray
Demonstrates collaboration — Shows how you'd interact with teammates
Reduces silence anxiety — Structured narration is less awkward than silence

The Framework:

Use a structured approach to think-aloud that balances information density with clarity:

Think-Aloud Structure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
// STEP 1: State what you're about to do
"I'm going to design the Vehicle class first since it's the core entity."
 
// STEP 2: Explain your reasoning
"I'm making Vehicle abstract because we'll have different vehicle types
like Car and Motorcycle, each with potentially different space requirements."
 
// STEP 3: Acknowledge alternatives
"I could use an interface here instead, but an abstract class lets me
share common implementation like license plate storage."
 
// STEP 4: State assumptions
"I'm assuming all vehicles have license plates - I'll verify this assumption."
 
// STEP 5: Identify future work
"I'll stub out the park() method for now and come back to the
implementation once I have the ParkingSpot class designed."

Common Mistakes:

Narrating syntax: "I'm writing 'class Vehicle'..." — This adds no value
Going silent: Long periods without speaking make interviewers nervous
Over-explaining: Every decision doesn't need a paragraph of justification
Asking permission: "Should I use an interface here?" — Make decisions, explain them
Defensive tone: Accept feedback gracefully; it's part of collaboration

The Signature Phrase

When uncertain, use: "My instinct is to do X because of Y, but I'm open to other approaches." This shows decision-making ability while remaining collaborative—exactly what senior engineers do in design discussions.

Scope Management Under Pressure

The most valuable skill in interview LLD isn't knowing design patterns—it's ruthless scope management. With only 45 minutes, you cannot design everything. The question is: what do you choose to design, and why?

The Scope Management Framework:

MUST, SHOULD, COULD, WON'T (MoSCoW)

•MUST — Core functionality without which the system is meaningless (design and implement fully)
•SHOULD — Important features that round out the design (design structure, stub implementations)
•COULD — Nice-to-have features (mention existence, defer implementation)
•WON'T — Explicitly out of scope (state early, get agreement)

Applying MoSCoW to a Parking Lot System:

Category	Features
MUST	Vehicle parking, spot allocation, basic pricing
SHOULD	Different vehicle types, spot sizes, payment processing
COULD	Reservation system, loyalty program, handicapped spots
WON'T	Mobile app, integration with city parking, analytics

The Power of Explicit Scoping:

When you explicitly state scope boundaries, you demonstrate professional engineering judgment. Compare:

❌ "I'll just focus on the basics" (vague, passive)
✅ "Given our time constraint, I'll fully implement vehicle parking with spot allocation. I'll stub out payment processing and note that reservation handling would be a natural extension." (specific, professional)

The second response shows you understand what matters, can prioritize, and communicate decisions clearly—exactly the skills senior engineers use daily.

Interviewer Collaboration

When you propose scope boundaries, interviewers often redirect: "Actually, I'd like you to focus on the reservation system instead." This is valuable information about what they want to evaluate. Treat scope negotiation as collaboration, not confrontation.

Summary and Key Takeaways

Interview LLD is a specialized skill that combines technical design competency with communication, time management, and scope negotiation. Success requires understanding the format's constraints and developing strategies to work within them.

Key Takeaways

•Interview LLD is artificially constrained — 45 minutes forces prioritization that wouldn't exist in real work, but tests genuine engineering judgment.
•Requirements gathering is evaluation — Skipping clarification signals poor engineering habits; asking good questions demonstrates seniority.
•Time management separates candidates — Progressive refinement (broad then deep) outperforms extreme depth or breadth strategies.
•Think-aloud is non-negotiable — Externalized reasoning enables evaluation and demonstrates collaboration ability.
•Scope management is a feature, not a bug — Explicit prioritization (MoSCoW) shows professional judgment.
•Interviewers evaluate process and outcome — How you work matters as much as what you produce.

What's Next:

Now that we understand interview LLD's unique constraints, we'll explore the polar opposite: real-world LLD. Production design is iterative, team-based, and evolves over months—a fundamentally different context that demands different skills.

Page Complete

You now understand the specialized nature of interview LLD: its time constraints, evaluation criteria, and strategies for success. Next, we'll contrast this with real-world LLD to see how these contexts differ and how skills transfer between them.