Interview scorecard template

Enterprise Architect interview scorecard

Evaluate Enterprise Architect candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical proficiency, systems and trade-offs, evidence and rigour, and collaboration and communication. Technical proficiency leads at 35%, so check depth across the domains they claim: TOGAF or Zachman framework use, ArchiMate or C4 modelling, API and event patterns, identity, and cloud landing zones on. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
software dataarchimatecapability modellingintegration patternstogaf
TL;DR
For technical proficiency, look for evidence the candidate names frameworks and notations they personally modelled in, and explains integration, identity and data patterns without retreating to slideware abstractions. For systems and trade-offs, look for evidence the candidate walks through a documented decision record with options, costs, risks and the constraint that decided it, including trade-offs they later regretted. 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

Technical proficiency

35% weight

Check depth across the domains they claim: TOGAF or Zachman framework use, ArchiMate or C4 modelling, API and event patterns, identity, and cloud landing zones on Azure or AWS.

Evidence to listen for

  • Command of the languages, frameworks, and data tools the role actually uses
  • Understands correctness, performance, and failure modes, not just syntax
  • Has opinions on testing and can justify them
  • Reads and reasons about code they did not write

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot work independently; fundamentals are missing.

2
Needs Improvement

Weak fundamentals; output needs heavy review.

3
Satisfactory

Competent for the role; needs guidance on complex or unfamiliar work.

4
Very Good

Strong practitioner; handles hard problems with little guidance.

5
Excellent

Names frameworks and notations they personally modelled in, and explains integration, identity and data patterns without retreating to slideware abstractions.

02
Evaluation factor

Systems and trade-offs

25% weight

Probe how they weighed build versus buy, monolith decomposition, SAP or Salesforce core versus custom, and technical debt retirement against licence and run costs.

Evidence to listen for

  • Reasons about scale, latency, cost, and failure before writing code
  • Names the trade-off they chose and what they gave up
  • Understands the data lifecycle end to end
  • Anticipates what breaks at ten times the volume

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No thinking beyond the immediate task; no awareness of scale or failure.

2
Needs Improvement

Limited architectural awareness; struggles with design decisions.

3
Satisfactory

Works within an existing design; makes sound local decisions.

4
Very Good

Designs for scale and maintainability; articulates trade-offs clearly.

5
Excellent

Walks through a documented decision record with options, costs, risks and the constraint that decided it, including trade-offs they later regretted.

03
Evaluation factor

Evidence and rigour

25% weight

Test whether their target state was measured: capability heat maps, application portfolio rationalisation counts, LeanIX or Ardoq inventories, and post-migration cost or latency figures.

Evidence to listen for

  • Validates results rather than trusting output
  • Knows how their work is measured and what a bad result looks like
  • Can describe a time their own analysis or model was wrong and how they caught it
  • Careful about data quality, leakage, and silent failure

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Ships unvalidated work; no notion of how correctness is checked.

2
Needs Improvement

Validates superficially; misses obvious quality or leakage issues.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable checks in place; rigour drops under time pressure.

4
Very Good

Validates thoroughly; can name a real error they caught in their own work.

5
Excellent

Quotes portfolio numbers before and after (applications retired, integrations consolidated, run cost saved) and cites where the roadmap slipped and why.

04
Evaluation factor

Collaboration and communication

15% weight

Assess how they governed without blocking: architecture review boards, standards exceptions, working with delivery teams, and selling a roadmap to CIOs and finance.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains technical work to non-technical stakeholders
  • Gives and takes code or peer review constructively
  • Documents enough that the work survives their absence
  • Aligns with team process rather than working around it

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot work in a team; resistant to feedback.

2
Needs Improvement

Communication issues create rework; lone-wolf tendencies.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate team member; documentation and review participation are light.

4
Very Good

Communicates well; reliable reviewer and collaborator.

5
Excellent

Describes review boards they chaired, dissent they absorbed, and cases where they approved a deviation from standard with clear conditions.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Enterprise Architect

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

  1. 01

    Can you discuss a time when your understanding of the current state architecture changed the future state?

  2. 02

    Can you provide an example of an IT project you shaped from conception to completion?

  3. 03

    Could you describe a time you shaped a project that considerably improved business operations?

  4. 04

    Can you describe a time when you had to manage architectural trade-offs?

  5. 05

    What is your approach to risk management in architectural decision-making?

See the complete Enterprise Architect 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