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 how they run the asset lifecycle end to end: procurement intake, tagging, CMDB reconciliation in ServiceNow HAM or Lansweeper, refresh cycles, and ITAD disposal with certificates of destruction.
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
Names owned asset populations by count, cites discovery-to-CMDB accuracy rates, and describes closing stock counts against purchase orders on schedule.
02
Evaluation factor
Improving the process
25% weight
Probe improvements they drove: automating reconciliation between Intune or SCCM discovery and the register, reclaiming unused licences, cutting shelfware spend, or tightening request-to-deploy workflows.
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
Quantifies savings from harvested licences or avoided true-up penalties and explains the workflow or normalisation rule change that produced them.
03
Evaluation factor
Judgement and autonomy
25% weight
Assess judgement on entitlement questions: Microsoft EA versus CSP counting, Oracle or Adobe audit exposure, ISO 19770 alignment, and when to escalate a compliance gap to legal or finance.
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
Walks through a real vendor audit or true-up, states the entitlement interpretation taken, and shows where they held firm versus purchased.
04
Evaluation factor
Communication
15% weight
Look for how they brief finance on depreciation and capex forecasts, chase asset returns from leavers, and push back on unmanaged shadow purchasing by department heads.
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
Describes specific reports delivered to finance or CIO, and a case where they changed buying behaviour without formal authority.
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.
