Interview scorecard template

Help Desk Technician interview scorecard

Evaluate Help Desk Technician candidates across 4 weighted areas: execution and reliability, improving the process, judgement and autonomy, and communication. Execution and reliability leads at 35%, so check daily ticket volume handled in ServiceNow, Jira Service Management or Freshservice, first-contact resolution rate, SLA attainment, and hands-on fixes: Active Directory accounts, Intune. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
operations administrationactive directoryit supportservice deskticketing
TL;DR
For execution and reliability, look for evidence the candidate cites concrete numbers (for example 30 tickets daily, 85 percent first-contact resolution) and names systems administered, not just tools observed. For improving the process, look for evidence the candidate points to specific KB articles or automated steps they created and the drop in repeat tickets 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

Execution and reliability

35% weight

Check daily ticket volume handled in ServiceNow, Jira Service Management or Freshservice, first-contact resolution rate, SLA attainment, and hands-on fixes: Active Directory accounts, Intune enrolment, Outlook and VPN faults.

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

Cites concrete numbers (for example 30 tickets daily, 85 percent first-contact resolution) and names systems administered, not just tools observed.

02
Evaluation factor

Improving the process

25% weight

Probe for knowledge base articles they authored, macros or ticket templates built, imaging and onboarding scripts, or recurring issues escalated into a permanent fix rather than reset repeatedly.

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

Points to specific KB articles or automated steps they created and the drop in repeat tickets that followed.

03
Evaluation factor

Judgement and autonomy

25% weight

Assess escalation judgement: when they invoke tier two or vendor support, how they triage a P1 outage against password resets, and how they handle suspected phishing or ransomware reports.

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

Describes clear triage thresholds, escalates with diagnostic notes attached, and knows which incidents bypass the queue entirely.

04
Evaluation factor

Communication

15% weight

Look for how they explain fixes to non-technical staff, write ticket notes another technician can pick up cold, and manage an angry executive whose laptop died before a board meeting.

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

Gives jargon-free walkthroughs, leaves handover-ready ticket documentation, and keeps frustrated users informed of status without overpromising.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Help Desk Technician

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

  1. 01

    Do you have previous experience in a technical help desk role?

  2. 02

    Describe your experience with ticketing systems.

  3. 03

    Are you familiar with remote support tools? Which have you used?

  4. 04

    What experience do you have with hardware or network troubleshooting?

  5. 05

    What troubleshooting steps do you typically follow when addressing a technical issue?

See the complete Help Desk Technician 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