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
Probe the portfolios they governed: annual spend, number of programmes, and outcomes such as retired legacy apps, benefits realised post go-live, or demand backlog cleared.
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 portfolio size in spend and programme count, and cites realised benefits or decommissioning results verified after delivery, not at approval.
02
Evaluation factor
Strategic judgement
25% weight
Test how they prioritise competing investments: scoring models, capacity versus demand analysis, stage-gate or investment committee criteria, and which projects they recommended killing.
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
Describes a defensible scoring or capacity model and a specific project they stopped or deferred, with the reasoning and downstream effect.
03
Evaluation factor
Building and leading teams
25% weight
Assess how they lead programme and project managers: PMO staffing, coaching on schedule quality, RAID discipline, and handling a delivery lead who kept missing gate reviews.
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
Gives concrete examples of raising PM capability, including how they intervened on a failing programme without taking over delivery themselves.
04
Evaluation factor
Influence across the business
15% weight
Look for influence over CIO, finance, and business unit heads: budget reforecasts, roadmap negotiation, and how they used tools like ServiceNow SPM, Clarity, or Planview to make trade-offs visible.
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
Shows they changed a funding or sequencing decision using portfolio data, and names the forum and stakeholders they had to convince.
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.
