Interview scorecard template

Failure Analysis Engineer interview scorecard

Evaluate Failure Analysis Engineer candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical depth, work that shipped, diagnosis under uncertainty, and working across the org. Technical depth leads at 35%, so probe the analytical techniques they run themselves, from microscopy and cross-sectioning to electrical fault isolation. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
engineering applied sciencefailure analysismaterialsreliabilityroot cause
TL;DR
For technical depth, look for evidence the candidate runs their own analytical techniques and knows what each can and cannot resolve on a given failure. For work that shipped, look for evidence the candidate names failures driven to confirmed root cause, with the design or process change that followed. 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 depth

35% weight

Probe the analytical techniques they run themselves, from microscopy and cross-sectioning to electrical fault isolation.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains the physics or mechanism behind their work, not just the tooling
  • Names the standards, tolerances, and constraints they designed against
  • Can defend a design decision under follow-up questions
  • Distinguishes what they personally engineered from what the team delivered

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot explain the fundamentals of their own stated specialism.

2
Needs Improvement

Knows the vocabulary but not the underlying mechanism; struggles under follow-ups.

3
Satisfactory

Solid working knowledge for the role; depth thins out on edge cases.

4
Very Good

Strong command of the domain; explains trade-offs and defends decisions well.

5
Excellent

Runs their own analytical techniques and knows what each can and cannot resolve on a given failure.

02
Evaluation factor

Work that shipped

30% weight

Look for failures they took to confirmed root cause, and what changed in the product afterwards.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names specific programmes, parts, or systems that reached production or field use
  • States their own scope inside the project
  • Can give measured outcomes: yield, cycle time, cost, failure rate
  • Explains what went wrong and what they changed

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No delivered work; experience is coursework, lab-only, or purely observational.

2
Needs Improvement

Contributed to projects but cannot say what shipped or what their part was.

3
Satisfactory

Has delivered real work; outcomes described without numbers.

4
Very Good

Names shipped work and their scope, with some measured results.

5
Excellent

Names failures driven to confirmed root cause, with the design or process change that followed.

03
Evaluation factor

Diagnosis under uncertainty

20% weight

Test how they proceed when the sample is destroyed, the return is one unit, and everyone wants an answer today.

Evidence to listen for

  • Describes a real failure they chased to root cause
  • Shows a method: isolate variables, reproduce, measure, eliminate
  • Distinguishes correlation from cause
  • Says what they ruled out and why, not only what the answer turned out to be

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No diagnostic method; guesses or escalates immediately.

2
Needs Improvement

Trial and error with no structure; cannot explain how they narrowed the cause.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable method on familiar problems; less structured on novel ones.

4
Very Good

Clear systematic approach with a real root-cause story.

5
Excellent

Plans destructive analysis in the right order on a single sample, and states confidence honestly under pressure.

04
Evaluation factor

Working across the org

15% weight

Check how they deliver a finding that blames a colleague's design or a major supplier.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains technical constraints to non-technical stakeholders without condescension
  • Has negotiated scope, cost, or timeline with manufacturing, product, or suppliers
  • Documents decisions so others can act on them
  • Takes review feedback without defensiveness

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot communicate outside their specialism; dismissive of other functions.

2
Needs Improvement

Communication gaps cause rework; avoids stakeholder contact.

3
Satisfactory

Works adequately with other teams; documentation is thin.

4
Very Good

Communicates clearly across functions; reliable collaborator.

5
Excellent

Delivers uncomfortable findings with evidence that holds up, without softening the conclusion.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Failure Analysis Engineer

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

  1. 01

    How many years have you worked in failure analysis, and which industries have you done it in?

  2. 02

    Which analytical tools do you operate yourself for isolating the root cause of an electrical device failure?

  3. 03

    Walk me through the process you follow when a failed unit lands on your bench.

  4. 04

    What do you do to make sure the data you gather is accurate and the sample is not compromised?

  5. 05

    Take a minute on camera to walk through one root cause analysis or FMEA you personally led, using a real example.

See the complete Failure Analysis Engineer 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