Interview scorecard template

Information Architect interview scorecard

Evaluate Information Architect candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so review sitemaps, taxonomies, content models and navigation redesigns they personally owned; ask for site scale, page or SKU counts, and the search or findability metrics that moved. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationcard sortinginformation architecturetaxonomytree testing
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate walks through a large-scale restructure with before and after findability data, showing their own sitemaps, content models and labelling systems. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate explains why a taxonomy was polyhierarchical or flat, cites card sort agreement scores, and defends label choices with user language evidence. 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

Portfolio

35% weight

Review sitemaps, taxonomies, content models and navigation redesigns they personally owned; ask for site scale, page or SKU counts, and the search or findability metrics that moved.

Evidence to listen for

  • Work exists and can be looked at, not just described
  • States what they made versus what the team or a template made
  • Shows range rather than one repeated style
  • Can walk through a piece from brief to final

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No portfolio, or work that is unattributable or clearly templated.

2
Needs Improvement

Thin portfolio; unclear what they personally made.

3
Satisfactory

Real work with adequate range; contribution mostly clear.

4
Very Good

Strong varied portfolio with clear personal ownership.

5
Excellent

Walks through a large-scale restructure with before and after findability data, showing their own sitemaps, content models and labelling systems.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Probe method depth: card sorting (open and closed), tree testing in Optimal Workshop, faceted metadata schemes, controlled vocabularies, and how they chose labels over stakeholder jargon.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains why a layout, type choice, or colour decision serves the brief
  • Knows typography and hierarchy as craft, not decoration
  • Works to a brand system without either breaking it or hiding behind it
  • Names the tools they are genuinely fast in

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot explain any decision; work is arbitrary.

2
Needs Improvement

Talks in taste terms only; no link between choice and brief.

3
Satisfactory

Sound craft with some ability to justify decisions.

4
Very Good

Articulate about why each choice serves the brief.

5
Excellent

Explains why a taxonomy was polyhierarchical or flat, cites card sort agreement scores, and defends label choices with user language evidence.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Test how they handled a failed tree test or analytics showing users bypassing navigation; look for rework cycles and what the second structure changed.

Evidence to listen for

  • Takes critique without treating it as an attack
  • Distinguishes a subjective preference from a real problem, and says so politely
  • Iterates fast rather than defending version one
  • Delivers files correctly and on time

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Defensive about critique; will not revise.

2
Needs Improvement

Accepts feedback passively; iterations do not improve the work.

3
Satisfactory

Revises willingly; struggles to push back on weak feedback.

4
Very Good

Iterates quickly and can argue for the work when the feedback is wrong.

5
Excellent

Describes a structure that tested badly, names the specific task success rate, and shows the revised model plus retest results.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Assess how they work with content strategists, SEO, and engineering on CMS constraints; ask about migration mapping, redirect plans, and governance handed to content owners.

Evidence to listen for

  • Asks about audience and goal before opening the design tool
  • Works with marketing, product, or clients rather than in isolation
  • Flags an impossible brief early
  • Hands over files and assets others can actually use

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Designs in isolation; ignores the brief's purpose.

2
Needs Improvement

Starts designing before understanding the goal.

3
Satisfactory

Asks the right questions when prompted.

4
Very Good

Interrogates the brief up front and hands over cleanly.

5
Excellent

Negotiates CMS and URL constraints early, delivers migration and redirect maps, and leaves a governance model owners can maintain.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Information Architect

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

  1. 01

    How extensive is your experience in information architecture?

  2. 02

    Can you describe the most complex set of content you have had to organise?

  3. 03

    Could you describe a time when your work made a significant difference to a project?

  4. 04

    Can you discuss your experience with user research and how it informs your work?

  5. 05

    How have you used customer journey maps in previous roles?

See the complete Information 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