Interview scorecard template

IT Sourcing Manager interview scorecard

Evaluate IT Sourcing Manager candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical command, deals and deliverables that closed, risk judgement, and explaining it to decision-makers. Technical command leads at 35%, so check command of IT category sourcing: RFP/RFI construction, TCO and should-cost models, SaaS licensing metrics, MSA, SOW and SLA terms, plus tools. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
finance riskit procurementsaas contractstco modellingvendor negotiation
TL;DR
For technical command, look for evidence the candidate names specific license models (per-core, MAU, consumption), builds defensible should-cost baselines, and cites clauses they redlined in MSAs and DPAs. For deals and deliverables that closed, look for evidence the candidate quotes contract values, realised savings percentages and cycle times, and explains how procurement finance signed off on the benefit claim. 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 command

35% weight

Check command of IT category sourcing: RFP/RFI construction, TCO and should-cost models, SaaS licensing metrics, MSA, SOW and SLA terms, plus tools like Coupa, Ariba or ServiceNow.

Evidence to listen for

  • Commands the instruments, models, or reporting standards the role turns on
  • Can build the analysis rather than only interpret someone else's
  • Knows the assumptions inside a model and which ones actually drive the answer
  • Fluent in the frameworks and disclosure regimes that apply

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot explain the instruments or standards they claim to work with.

2
Needs Improvement

Interprets others' analysis but cannot build or defend it.

3
Satisfactory

Solid working command; thin on unfamiliar structures or standards.

4
Very Good

Builds the analysis and knows which assumptions actually move the answer.

5
Excellent

Names specific license models (per-core, MAU, consumption), builds defensible should-cost baselines, and cites clauses they redlined in MSAs and DPAs.

02
Evaluation factor

Deals and deliverables that closed

25% weight

Probe actual contracts they owned end to end: annual spend, renewal or rebid outcomes, negotiated savings against baseline, and how finance validated the reported number.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names transactions, filings, or reports they worked, with size, counterparties, and their own scope
  • Distinguishes their contribution from the deal team's
  • Knows what happened afterwards, including what underperformed
  • Can describe one that fell over and why

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No completed work; describes process rather than outcomes.

2
Needs Improvement

Involved in transactions but cannot state their own scope.

3
Satisfactory

Real deliverables with adequate ownership; outcomes described loosely.

4
Very Good

Named transactions or filings with clear personal scope and honest post-mortems.

5
Excellent

Quotes contract values, realised savings percentages and cycle times, and explains how procurement finance signed off on the benefit claim.

03
Evaluation factor

Risk judgement

25% weight

Assess how they weigh vendor concentration, exit and lock-in risk, SOC 2 and GDPR data processing exposure, financial viability checks, and fourth-party subprocessor dependencies.

Evidence to listen for

  • Distinguishes a modelled risk from a real one
  • States confidence and what would change their view
  • Comfortable disagreeing with a number that suits everybody
  • Knows the limits of the data behind a projection, especially over long horizons

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Treats model output as truth; no sense of data limits.

2
Needs Improvement

Reports numbers without qualifying them; avoids unwelcome conclusions.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable judgement; qualifies findings when prompted.

4
Very Good

States confidence unprompted and will hold an unpopular position on evidence.

5
Excellent

Describes a supplier they blocked or ring-fenced, citing audit findings, insolvency signals or missing exit clauses, and the mitigation agreed.

04
Evaluation factor

Explaining it to decision-makers

15% weight

Test how they brief CIOs, legal and budget owners: negotiation strategy papers, renewal calendars, benchmark data from Gartner or peer references, and handling engineering's preferred-vendor pushback.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains a technical position to an investment committee, board, or regulator so they can act on it
  • Writes to the standard the audience is held to
  • Handles challenge without either caving or digging in
  • Works across legal, operations, and external counterparties

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot communicate beyond technical peers.

2
Needs Improvement

Explanations lose the audience or oversimplify to the point of error.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate with familiar audiences; less effective under challenge.

4
Very Good

Explains clearly to committees and regulators and holds up under challenge.

5
Excellent

Turns benchmark and TCO analysis into a clear recommendation, holds position against stakeholder pressure, and secures decisions without stalling delivery timelines.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a IT Sourcing Manager

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

  1. 01

    What is your professional experience with IT sourcing management?

  2. 02

    Can you describe a contract negotiation that you led?

  3. 03

    Tell me about balancing cost against quality in a sourcing decision.

  4. 04

    How do you evaluate potential vendors?

  5. 05

    What kinds of IT vendors have you sourced?

See the complete IT Sourcing Manager 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