Evaluate Innovation Catalyst candidates across 4 weighted areas: record of outcomes, strategic judgement, building and leading teams, and influence across the business. Record of outcomes leads at 35%, so check which innovation programmes they ran end to end: hackathons, internal venture funds, pilot conversions to production, and hard numbers on ideas. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.
For record of outcomes, look for evidence the candidate names specific pilots that reached production, with funding amounts, conversion rates from idea intake to launch, and honest counts of shutdowns. For strategic judgement, look for evidence the candidate applies explicit stage gates and kill criteria, defends a bet they cancelled early, and separates incremental improvement from genuinely new value.
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
Record of outcomes
35% weight
Check which innovation programmes they ran end to end: hackathons, internal venture funds, pilot conversions to production, and hard numbers on ideas funded, killed, or scaled.
Evidence to listen for
Names organisations, budgets, and headcount they were actually accountable for
Gives outcomes with numbers, not initiatives with adjectives
Separates what they drove from what the market or a predecessor did
Can describe something they owned that failed
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Titles and initiatives only; no accountable outcomes.
2
Needs Improvement
Claims results the organisation would have had anyway; no scope clarity.
3
Satisfactory
Real accountability with some numbers; attribution occasionally generous.
4
Very Good
Clear scope and measured outcomes, including an honest failure.
5
Excellent
Names specific pilots that reached production, with funding amounts, conversion rates from idea intake to launch, and honest counts of shutdowns.
02
Evaluation factor
Strategic judgement
25% weight
Probe how they choose which bets to back: portfolio framing, stage gates, lean startup validation, killing zombie projects, and balancing core business against horizon three work.
Evidence to listen for
Explains a decision where the options were genuinely close and the information incomplete
Can say what they chose not to do and why
Distinguishes a bet from a certainty
Changes course on evidence rather than defending a position past its life
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Frameworks and slogans; no real decision they can walk through.
2
Needs Improvement
Describes decisions made elsewhere; cannot state the trade-off.
3
Satisfactory
Sound judgement on familiar decisions; less tested on ambiguous ones.
4
Very Good
Walks a genuinely close call, states what they gave up, and changed course on evidence.
5
Excellent
Applies explicit stage gates and kill criteria, defends a bet they cancelled early, and separates incremental improvement from genuinely new value.
03
Evaluation factor
Building and leading teams
25% weight
Assess how they built innovation capability in others: coaching squads, training facilitators, running design sprints, and creating communities of practice rather than hoarding the work.
Evidence to listen for
Has hired, developed, and where necessary removed people
Names someone who grew under them and what they did to cause it
Handles an underperformer directly rather than waiting it out
Builds a team that functions when they are not in the room
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No real people leadership; avoids difficult personnel decisions.
2
Needs Improvement
Managed a team but cannot describe developing or exiting anyone.
3
Satisfactory
Competent manager; development is informal.
4
Very Good
Demonstrable record of growing people and handling underperformance directly.
5
Excellent
Trained a cadre of internal facilitators or sprint leads, with evidence those people ran sessions independently after the catalyst stepped back.
04
Evaluation factor
Influence across the business
15% weight
Look for how they moved sceptical line managers, finance, legal, and IT to release budget, data access, or staff time for unproven ideas.
Evidence to listen for
Wins support from peers and boards without positional authority
Translates their function into terms the rest of the business cares about
Delivers unwelcome news early
Manages up without either capitulating or stonewalling
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Relies entirely on authority; conceals bad news.
2
Needs Improvement
Struggles to influence peers; communicates in function-specific jargon.
3
Satisfactory
Works adequately with peers and leadership.
4
Very Good
Persuades peers and boards on merit and delivers bad news early.
5
Excellent
Describes converting a named blocker into a sponsor, citing the argument, the pilot metrics used, and the resource that was subsequently unlocked.
Evidence-led prompts
Interview questions for a Innovation Catalyst
Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.
01
Can you describe an example where you introduced an innovative solution to a problem?
02
How much experience do you have with transformation work in an established organisation?
03
Describe a time where you used data to drive a decision or strategy.
04
Can you describe your experience with design thinking methods?
05
How familiar are you with lean and agile approaches?
