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 command of cycle time studies, SPC control charts, Cp/Cpk capability analysis, PFMEA, and control plans; ask which process (injection moulding, CNC, assembly, plating) they own end to end.
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
Names specific processes, quotes Cpk before and after, and explains PFMEA severity and detection ratings from memory rather than in general terms.
02
Evaluation factor
Work that shipped
30% weight
Probe line changes they personally implemented: fixture redesigns, takt rebalancing, scrap reduction, new equipment qualification with IQ/OQ/PQ, and the yield or OEE numbers that moved.
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
Cites a named line or product with before and after scrap, OEE, or units per hour, plus who ran it after handover.
03
Evaluation factor
Diagnosis under uncertainty
20% weight
Test root cause work on intermittent defects: how they used 5 Why, Ishikawa, or DOE when the data was noisy and production pressure demanded a fast containment decision.
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
Separates containment from true root cause, describes a wrong first hypothesis, and shows how measurement data settled the question.
04
Evaluation factor
Working across the org
15% weight
Assess how they work with operators, maintenance, quality, and suppliers: standard work rollouts, training on new SOPs, PPAP submissions, and handling resistance on the shop floor.
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 winning operator buy-in with concrete detail, and shows quality and maintenance were engaged before a change hit the floor.
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.
