Interview scorecard template

Biophilic Designer interview scorecard

Evaluate Biophilic Designer candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so review built projects, not mood boards: living walls, atrium planting schemes, daylight strategies. Ask for square footage, plant species specified, irrigation detailing, and post-occupancy photos twelve months. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationbiophilic designdaylightingliving wallswell standard
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate shows completed spaces with maintained planting, names species and substrate choices, and explains what survived and what failed. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate ties each design move to a named pattern or credit, and defends material, light, and species decisions with evidence. 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

Portfolio

35% weight

Review built projects, not mood boards: living walls, atrium planting schemes, daylight strategies. Ask for square footage, plant species specified, irrigation detailing, and post-occupancy photos twelve months on.

Evidence to listen for

  • Work exists and can be looked at, not just described
  • States what they made versus what the team or a template made
  • Shows range rather than one repeated style
  • Can walk through a piece from brief to final

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No portfolio, or work that is unattributable or clearly templated.

2
Needs Improvement

Thin portfolio; unclear what they personally made.

3
Satisfactory

Real work with adequate range; contribution mostly clear.

4
Very Good

Strong varied portfolio with clear personal ownership.

5
Excellent

Shows completed spaces with maintained planting, names species and substrate choices, and explains what survived and what failed.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Test fluency with the 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design, prospect refuge, WELL Feature Nature and Place, plus Revit or Rhino output and Enscape renders they produced themselves.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains why a layout, type choice, or colour decision serves the brief
  • Knows typography and hierarchy as craft, not decoration
  • Works to a brand system without either breaking it or hiding behind it
  • Names the tools they are genuinely fast in

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot explain any decision; work is arbitrary.

2
Needs Improvement

Talks in taste terms only; no link between choice and brief.

3
Satisfactory

Sound craft with some ability to justify decisions.

4
Very Good

Articulate about why each choice serves the brief.

5
Excellent

Ties each design move to a named pattern or credit, and defends material, light, and species decisions with evidence.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Probe how they handled facilities pushback on maintenance cost, arborist or horticulturalist input, and redesigns after mock-ups or lux readings failed to hit targets.

Evidence to listen for

  • Takes critique without treating it as an attack
  • Distinguishes a subjective preference from a real problem, and says so politely
  • Iterates fast rather than defending version one
  • Delivers files correctly and on time

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Defensive about critique; will not revise.

2
Needs Improvement

Accepts feedback passively; iterations do not improve the work.

3
Satisfactory

Revises willingly; struggles to push back on weak feedback.

4
Very Good

Iterates quickly and can argue for the work when the feedback is wrong.

5
Excellent

Describes specific revisions driven by irrigation, weight loading, or maintenance feedback without treating the concept as untouchable.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Assess translation of client wellbeing goals into buildable scope inside budget, coordinating with structural engineers on green roof loads and M and E on humidity.

Evidence to listen for

  • Asks about audience and goal before opening the design tool
  • Works with marketing, product, or clients rather than in isolation
  • Flags an impossible brief early
  • Hands over files and assets others can actually use

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Designs in isolation; ignores the brief's purpose.

2
Needs Improvement

Starts designing before understanding the goal.

3
Satisfactory

Asks the right questions when prompted.

4
Very Good

Interrogates the brief up front and hands over cleanly.

5
Excellent

Scopes biophilic intent against budget, ceiling voids, and lifecycle costs, flagging conflicts to consultants early rather than at tender.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Biophilic Designer

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    Can you describe your experience integrating natural elements into interiors?

  2. 02

    Can you give examples of projects where you used natural materials?

  3. 03

    Have you worked with clients focused on environmental wellness, and how did you meet their needs?

  4. 04

    What role does natural light play in your design process?

  5. 05

    Can you explain your process for selecting plants for indoor spaces?

See the complete Biophilic Designer question set
Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards