Interview scorecard template

Bioplastic Artisan interview scorecard

Pre-screening scorecard for Bioplastic Artisan candidates.

See AI scoring
creative performancebiodesignbioplasticmaterial experimentationmould making
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

Body of work

35% weight

Ask for photographs of finished bioplastic pieces: gelatin-glycerin sheets, algae or chitosan films, PLA-composite castings, mycelium panels. Check scale, finish quality, and whether pieces were sold, exhibited, or commissioned.

Evidence to listen for

  • Has work that exists publicly and can be checked
  • States what they made versus what they contributed to
  • Can talk about range as well as their signature style
  • Knows how the work was received and by whom

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Nothing finished or public; describes intentions rather than output.

2
Needs Improvement

Small or unverifiable body of work; unclear personal contribution.

3
Satisfactory

Real output with adequate range; reception described vaguely.

4
Very Good

Substantial verifiable work with clear ownership and range.

5
Excellent

Shows a coherent body of cast, moulded, or thermoformed bio-material objects with named commissions, exhibitions, or retail stockists behind them.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and technique

25% weight

Probe recipe control: plasticiser ratios, agar or starch sourcing, curing humidity, shrinkage rates, pigment and filler behaviour, silicone versus plaster moulds, sanding and sealing of brittle edges.

Evidence to listen for

  • Can discuss technique concretely rather than in terms of feel or vibe
  • Names influences and what they took from each
  • Explains a deliberate choice and the effect it was for
  • Knows their own weak areas and what they do about them

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No technical vocabulary; cannot discuss choices behind the work.

2
Needs Improvement

Talks in generalities; choices sound accidental.

3
Satisfactory

Solid craft with some ability to explain decisions.

4
Very Good

Articulate about technique and deliberate about effect.

5
Excellent

Quotes their own formulations by ratio, explains why a batch warps or blooms, and adjusts curing conditions deliberately rather than by guesswork.

03
Evaluation factor

Reliability and process

25% weight

Look for batch discipline: labelled recipe logs, drying times built into schedules, spoilage and mould contamination rates, how they met a 200 piece order with a material that shrinks unevenly.

Evidence to listen for

  • Meets deadlines and briefs, with evidence
  • Handles revisions and direction without ego
  • Describes how they work when the brief is vague or changes late
  • Has repeat clients, bookings, or collaborators

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Misses commitments; cannot take direction.

2
Needs Improvement

Inconsistent delivery; defensive about revisions.

3
Satisfactory

Reliable on clear briefs; struggles when direction shifts.

4
Very Good

Consistently delivers and adapts; repeat collaborators.

5
Excellent

Keeps dated batch records, quotes realistic lead times allowing for cure, and has delivered volume orders with documented reject rates.

04
Evaluation factor

Presence with an audience

15% weight

Assess how they present the material to buyers, students, or gallery visitors: workshop teaching, market stalls, compostability claims, honest talk about lifespan and end-of-life handling.

Evidence to listen for

  • Comfortable performing or presenting on demand, including cold
  • Reads a room and adjusts
  • Handles a bad night, a difficult client, or a hostile crowd without unravelling
  • Represents the employer well in front of others

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot perform or present on request; unravels under pressure.

2
Needs Improvement

Rigid delivery; no read of the room.

3
Satisfactory

Competent in familiar settings; less adaptable in new ones.

4
Very Good

Strong presence and adapts to the room.

5
Excellent

Explains bio-material provenance and degradation clearly to lay audiences, has run workshops or demos, and avoids overstated compostability claims.

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