Evaluate Network Architect candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical depth, work that shipped, diagnosis under uncertainty, and working across the org. Technical depth leads at 35%, so check depth on BGP path selection, OSPF area design, VXLAN/EVPN fabrics, MPLS L3VPN and QoS policy; ask which IOS-XE, NX-OS, Junos or Arista EOS platforms. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.
engineering applied sciencebgp ospfdata center fabricnetwork architecturesd wan
TL;DR
For technical depth, look for evidence the candidate explains route reflector and EVPN design choices with real config detail, cites MTU, convergence timers and platform scaling limits from memory. For work that shipped, look for evidence the candidate names specific builds with node counts, bandwidth figures and maintenance windows, and owns the low-level design plus post-cutover validation results.
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 depth on BGP path selection, OSPF area design, VXLAN/EVPN fabrics, MPLS L3VPN and QoS policy; ask which IOS-XE, NX-OS, Junos or Arista EOS platforms they configured directly.
Evidence to listen for
Explains the physics or mechanism behind their work, not just the tooling
Names the standards, tolerances, and constraints they designed against
Can defend a design decision under follow-up questions
Distinguishes what they personally engineered from what the team delivered
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot explain the fundamentals of their own stated specialism.
2
Needs Improvement
Knows the vocabulary but not the underlying mechanism; struggles under follow-ups.
3
Satisfactory
Solid working knowledge for the role; depth thins out on edge cases.
4
Very Good
Strong command of the domain; explains trade-offs and defends decisions well.
5
Excellent
Explains route reflector and EVPN design choices with real config detail, cites MTU, convergence timers and platform scaling limits from memory.
02
Evaluation factor
Work that shipped
30% weight
Probe designs they carried to production: campus refreshes, spine-leaf builds, SD-WAN migrations, firewall segmentation. Ask for site counts, throughput, cutover windows and HLD/LLD documents they authored.
Evidence to listen for
Names specific programmes, parts, or systems that reached production or field use
States their own scope inside the project
Can give measured outcomes: yield, cycle time, cost, failure rate
Explains what went wrong and what they changed
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No delivered work; experience is coursework, lab-only, or purely observational.
2
Needs Improvement
Contributed to projects but cannot say what shipped or what their part was.
3
Satisfactory
Has delivered real work; outcomes described without numbers.
4
Very Good
Names shipped work and their scope, with some measured results.
5
Excellent
Names specific builds with node counts, bandwidth figures and maintenance windows, and owns the low-level design plus post-cutover validation results.
03
Evaluation factor
Diagnosis under uncertainty
20% weight
Test troubleshooting of intermittent faults: asymmetric routing, microbursts, MTU black holes, flapping adjacencies. Ask how they used packet captures, NetFlow, SNMP baselines or ThousandEyes to isolate cause.
Evidence to listen for
Describes a real failure they chased to root cause
Shows a method: isolate variables, reproduce, measure, eliminate
Distinguishes correlation from cause
Says what they ruled out and why, not only what the answer turned out to be
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No diagnostic method; guesses or escalates immediately.
2
Needs Improvement
Trial and error with no structure; cannot explain how they narrowed the cause.
3
Satisfactory
Reasonable method on familiar problems; less structured on novel ones.
4
Very Good
Clear systematic approach with a real root-cause story.
5
Excellent
Walks a real outage from symptom to root cause with capture evidence, distinguishes correlation from cause, and describes the permanent fix applied.
04
Evaluation factor
Working across the org
15% weight
Assess dealings with security, cloud, application and vendor teams: firewall change reviews, ExpressRoute or Direct Connect handoffs, capacity forecasts, budget cases and carrier escalations.
Evidence to listen for
Explains technical constraints to non-technical stakeholders without condescension
Has negotiated scope, cost, or timeline with manufacturing, product, or suppliers
Documents decisions so others can act on them
Takes review feedback without defensiveness
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot communicate outside their specialism; dismissive of other functions.
2
Needs Improvement
Communication gaps cause rework; avoids stakeholder contact.
3
Satisfactory
Works adequately with other teams; documentation is thin.
4
Very Good
Communicates clearly across functions; reliable collaborator.
5
Excellent
Describes negotiating segmentation or peering design with security and cloud teams, plus a vendor or budget decision they justified and won.
Evidence-led prompts
Interview questions for a Network Architect
Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.
01
What is your experience designing and implementing network infrastructure?
02
Which types of network architecture are you most familiar with?
03
Can you discuss your experience producing network designs and documentation?
04
What are your steps when designing a new network from planning to implementation?
