Interview scorecard template

Olfactory Design Consultant interview scorecard

Evaluate Olfactory Design Consultant candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so review named scent programmes: hotel lobbies, retail flagships, museum installations. Ask for brief, chosen accords, diffusion hardware, coverage volume, and any lift in dwell time. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationdiffusion systemsfragrance compositionifra compliancescent branding
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate walks through three or more delivered scent identities with the brand brief, accord choices, hardware specified, and measured customer or client response. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate names specific materials and accords, explains structure and substantivity choices, and translates a brand attribute into a defensible olfactory rationale. 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

Portfolio

35% weight

Review named scent programmes: hotel lobbies, retail flagships, museum installations. Ask for brief, chosen accords, diffusion hardware, coverage volume, and any lift in dwell time or recall.

Evidence to listen for

  • Work exists and can be looked at, not just described
  • States what they made versus what the team or a template made
  • Shows range rather than one repeated style
  • Can walk through a piece from brief to final

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No portfolio, or work that is unattributable or clearly templated.

2
Needs Improvement

Thin portfolio; unclear what they personally made.

3
Satisfactory

Real work with adequate range; contribution mostly clear.

4
Very Good

Strong varied portfolio with clear personal ownership.

5
Excellent

Walks through three or more delivered scent identities with the brand brief, accord choices, hardware specified, and measured customer or client response.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Probe compositional vocabulary: top, heart and base structure, materials such as iso E super or ambroxan, headspace capture, and how they brief a perfumer at IFF or Givaudan.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains why a layout, type choice, or colour decision serves the brief
  • Knows typography and hierarchy as craft, not decoration
  • Works to a brand system without either breaking it or hiding behind it
  • Names the tools they are genuinely fast in

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot explain any decision; work is arbitrary.

2
Needs Improvement

Talks in taste terms only; no link between choice and brief.

3
Satisfactory

Sound craft with some ability to justify decisions.

4
Very Good

Articulate about why each choice serves the brief.

5
Excellent

Names specific materials and accords, explains structure and substantivity choices, and translates a brand attribute into a defensible olfactory rationale.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Test how they handle scent rejection: hedonic panel results, staff complaints about intensity, sensory fatigue, and reformulation rounds with the fragrance house before sign-off.

Evidence to listen for

  • Takes critique without treating it as an attack
  • Distinguishes a subjective preference from a real problem, and says so politely
  • Iterates fast rather than defending version one
  • Delivers files correctly and on time

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Defensive about critique; will not revise.

2
Needs Improvement

Accepts feedback passively; iterations do not improve the work.

3
Satisfactory

Revises willingly; struggles to push back on weak feedback.

4
Very Good

Iterates quickly and can argue for the work when the feedback is wrong.

5
Excellent

Describes structured evaluation panels, tracks intensity settings and modification requests, and shows a scent that improved measurably across iterations.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Assess constraint handling: IFRA standards and allergen declaration, HVAC versus standalone diffusers, air changes per hour, budget per cubic metre, and multi-site rollout logistics.

Evidence to listen for

  • Asks about audience and goal before opening the design tool
  • Works with marketing, product, or clients rather than in isolation
  • Flags an impossible brief early
  • Hands over files and assets others can actually use

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Designs in isolation; ignores the brief's purpose.

2
Needs Improvement

Starts designing before understanding the goal.

3
Satisfactory

Asks the right questions when prompted.

4
Very Good

Interrogates the brief up front and hands over cleanly.

5
Excellent

Converts vague brand language into a workable brief with compliance limits, hardware spec, coverage calculations, and per-site cost clearly stated.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Olfactory Design Consultant

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 project where you delivered a scent into a product or space?

  2. 02

    Do you have experience creating scent profiles for brands or products?

  3. 03

    What experience do you have designing for different contexts such as retail or events?

  4. 04

    What is your knowledge of aromatic materials and their properties?

  5. 05

    Have you had to match or recreate an existing scent?

See the complete Olfactory Design Consultant 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