Interview scorecard template

Capacity Planner interview scorecard

Evaluate Capacity Planner candidates across 4 weighted areas: execution and reliability, improving the process, judgement and autonomy, and communication. Execution and reliability leads at 35%, so check the scale and horizon they planned to, the systems they used, and how their forecasts actually performed. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
operations administrationcapacity planningforecastingoperationssupply chain
TL;DR
For execution and reliability, look for evidence the candidate has planned at real scale with measured forecast accuracy, and knows where their model was consistently wrong. For improving the process, look for evidence the candidate has redesigned a planning process or cadence, with measured effect on accuracy, stock, or utilisation. 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

Execution and reliability

35% weight

Check the scale and horizon they planned to, the systems they used, and how their forecasts actually performed.

Evidence to listen for

  • Describes a workload they owned and how they kept it from slipping
  • Names the tools and systems they ran day to day
  • Can talk about volume: tickets, inboxes, orders, uptime
  • Nothing quietly falls through when they are busy

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot describe their own workload; things slip without them noticing.

2
Needs Improvement

Handles routine volume; drops work under pressure.

3
Satisfactory

Reliable on steady-state work; struggles when volume spikes.

4
Very Good

Consistently reliable at real volume with a system for staying on top.

5
Excellent

Has planned at real scale with measured forecast accuracy, and knows where their model was consistently wrong.

02
Evaluation factor

Improving the process

25% weight

Test what they changed about the planning process itself, not just the numbers they produced.

Evidence to listen for

  • Has changed a process rather than only following one
  • Can name what was slow or error-prone and what they did about it
  • Documents so the improvement survives them
  • Knows when a process is worth automating and when it is not

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Follows instructions only; no sense that process can change.

2
Needs Improvement

Notices problems but escalates rather than solving.

3
Satisfactory

Makes small improvements; impact is local and undocumented.

4
Very Good

Has redesigned a real process with measurable effect.

5
Excellent

Has redesigned a planning process or cadence, with measured effect on accuracy, stock, or utilisation.

03
Evaluation factor

Judgement and autonomy

25% weight

Assess how they decide when demand signals conflict and committing early costs money either way.

Evidence to listen for

  • Knows what to decide alone and what to escalate
  • Handles an exception without freezing or improvising recklessly
  • Protects confidentiality and access appropriately
  • Asks a clarifying question rather than guessing on something costly

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Either escalates everything or acts recklessly on their own.

2
Needs Improvement

Needs frequent direction; uneasy with exceptions.

3
Satisfactory

Sound judgement on familiar decisions.

4
Very Good

Clear sense of their own authority; handles exceptions well.

5
Excellent

Decides under conflicting signals with the trade-off stated explicitly, and revisits the call when data lands.

04
Evaluation factor

Communication

15% weight

Judge how they get sales, operations, and finance to agree on one plan rather than three.

Evidence to listen for

  • Writes clearly enough that people act without a follow-up
  • Manages expectations before a deadline slips, not after
  • Handles a frustrated colleague or customer calmly
  • Works across time zones or async where the role needs it

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Unclear written communication; goes quiet when things slip.

2
Needs Improvement

Communication needs chasing; raises problems late.

3
Satisfactory

Clear enough day to day; proactive updates are inconsistent.

4
Very Good

Clear, proactive, and calm under pressure.

5
Excellent

Drives a single agreed plan across sales, operations, and finance, and surfaces risk before it becomes a shortage.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Capacity Planner

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

  1. 01

    What is your previous experience in capacity planning, and what scale and horizon did you plan to?

  2. 02

    Which ERP systems have you worked with for capacity planning, and what did you actually do inside them?

  3. 03

    Walk us through the capacity planning tools and software you use day to day.

  4. 04

    How proficient are you with business intelligence tools for identifying and analysing capacity issues?

  5. 05

    Describe a time you built a demand forecast plan that worked, and tell us how accuracy was measured.

See the complete Capacity Planner 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