Interview scorecard template

IT Disaster Recovery Specialist interview scorecard

Evaluate IT Disaster Recovery Specialist candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical depth, real incidents and findings, risk judgement, and getting things fixed. Technical depth leads at 35%, so check hands-on command of replication and failover tooling: Zerto, Veeam, Azure Site Recovery, SRM, plus how they derive RTO and RPO targets from. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
security compliancebusiness continuitydisaster recoveryfailover testingrto rpo
TL;DR
For technical depth, look for evidence the candidate names specific tooling and tiering, quotes real RTO and RPO figures per application, and explains replication versus backup trade-offs precisely. For real incidents and findings, look for evidence the candidate describes a real invocation or full failover test with timings, what broke, and the runbook changes 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

Check hands-on command of replication and failover tooling: Zerto, Veeam, Azure Site Recovery, SRM, plus how they derive RTO and RPO targets from a business impact analysis.

Evidence to listen for

  • Command of the specific attack surface, tooling, and controls the role covers
  • Understands how the underlying system works, not just how the tool reports on it
  • Can explain an attack or control chain end to end
  • Distinguishes what they found themselves from what a scanner flagged

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Tool operator only; no understanding of the systems underneath.

2
Needs Improvement

Runs tooling but cannot explain findings or how the attack works.

3
Satisfactory

Solid working knowledge; depth thins outside familiar tooling.

4
Very Good

Strong command of the domain; explains attack and control chains clearly.

5
Excellent

Names specific tooling and tiering, quotes real RTO and RPO figures per application, and explains replication versus backup trade-offs precisely.

02
Evaluation factor

Real incidents and findings

30% weight

Probe actual invocations and tests: ransomware recovery, datacentre power loss, a failed failover, plus the DR test schedule they owned and what the post-test report flagged.

Evidence to listen for

  • Brings specific incidents, findings, or audits they personally worked
  • States their own role rather than the team's
  • Describes what was actually at risk and what changed afterwards
  • Can talk about a finding that turned out to be wrong

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No hands-on work; knowledge is entirely certification or coursework.

2
Needs Improvement

Limited exposure; cannot describe their contribution to an incident.

3
Satisfactory

Real casework with adequate detail; ownership sometimes vague.

4
Very Good

Specific incidents with clear personal scope and what changed after.

5
Excellent

Describes a real invocation or full failover test with timings, what broke, and the runbook changes that followed.

03
Evaluation factor

Risk judgement

20% weight

Assess how they rank applications by criticality, defend acceptable data loss to application owners, and handle dependency mapping gaps such as unrecovered Active Directory or DNS.

Evidence to listen for

  • Prioritises by actual exploitability and business impact, not raw severity scores
  • Can argue for accepting a risk as well as fixing it
  • Knows the difference between a finding and a problem
  • Does not cry wolf or wave things through

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Treats every finding as critical, or waves real risk through.

2
Needs Improvement

Follows severity scores mechanically; no business context.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable prioritisation; less confident arguing for risk acceptance.

4
Very Good

Prioritises by exploitability and impact; can justify accepting a risk.

5
Excellent

Prioritises by business impact rather than server count, and calls out hidden dependencies others missed before a test.

04
Evaluation factor

Getting things fixed

15% weight

Look for evidence they closed test findings: updated runbooks, ISO 22301 or SOC 2 audit remediation, backup verification, and pushing app teams to fix untested restores.

Evidence to listen for

  • Writes findings engineers can act on rather than a wall of output
  • Has persuaded a team to fix something they did not want to fix
  • Explains risk to executives in business terms
  • Works with the org rather than policing it

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Adversarial with engineering; findings never get fixed.

2
Needs Improvement

Reports are unactionable; no influence beyond raising tickets.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate reporting; relies on mandate rather than persuasion.

4
Very Good

Actionable findings and a real record of getting fixes shipped.

5
Excellent

Tracks findings to closure with owners and dates, and shows a measurable drop in recovery time between successive tests.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a IT Disaster Recovery Specialist

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

  1. 01

    Can you describe a successful recovery you have been part of?

  2. 02

    Describe a time when a recovery plan failed and how you resolved it.

  3. 03

    What was the largest disaster recovery project you have worked on?

  4. 04

    What types of recovery testing matter most, and how often should they happen?

  5. 05

    How would you rate your skills with backup management systems?

See the complete IT Disaster Recovery Specialist 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