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
Execution and reliability
35% weight
Check daily throughput: how many work orders, service calls or care visits they coordinated, which system (SAP, ServiceMax, Salesforce Field Service, Dynamics) and their SLA hit rate.
Evidence to listen for
Describes a workload they owned and how they kept it from slipping
Names the tools and systems they ran day to day
Can talk about volume: tickets, inboxes, orders, uptime
Nothing quietly falls through when they are busy
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Cannot describe their own workload; things slip without them noticing.
2
Needs Improvement
Handles routine volume; drops work under pressure.
3
Satisfactory
Reliable on steady-state work; struggles when volume spikes.
4
Very Good
Consistently reliable at real volume with a system for staying on top.
5
Excellent
Quotes volumes and SLA percentages, names the dispatch or scheduling system used, and explains how same-day changes were absorbed without missed visits.
02
Evaluation factor
Improving the process
25% weight
Probe changes they made to rota building, parts ordering or escalation routing; look for reduced travel time, fewer repeat visits, or cleaner handover between coordinators and technicians.
Evidence to listen for
Has changed a process rather than only following one
Can name what was slow or error-prone and what they did about it
Documents so the improvement survives them
Knows when a process is worth automating and when it is not
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Follows instructions only; no sense that process can change.
2
Needs Improvement
Notices problems but escalates rather than solving.
3
Satisfactory
Makes small improvements; impact is local and undocumented.
4
Very Good
Has redesigned a real process with measurable effect.
5
Excellent
Describes a specific fix, for example a revised call-out template or route grouping, with the before and after numbers attached.
03
Evaluation factor
Judgement and autonomy
25% weight
Test how they triage competing urgent jobs: engineer sickness, a breakdown outside contract hours, a missing part, and when they escalate to a service manager versus decide alone.
Evidence to listen for
Knows what to decide alone and what to escalate
Handles an exception without freezing or improvising recklessly
Protects confidentiality and access appropriately
Asks a clarifying question rather than guessing on something costly
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Either escalates everything or acts recklessly on their own.
2
Needs Improvement
Needs frequent direction; uneasy with exceptions.
3
Satisfactory
Sound judgement on familiar decisions.
4
Very Good
Clear sense of their own authority; handles exceptions well.
5
Excellent
Gives a clear prioritisation logic tied to contract terms and risk, plus a real example where they committed and informed the manager afterwards.
04
Evaluation factor
Communication
15% weight
Assess how they deliver bad news to a client whose visit slipped, and how they brief field staff: tone on the phone, written job notes, and follow-up confirmation.
Evidence to listen for
Writes clearly enough that people act without a follow-up
Manages expectations before a deadline slips, not after
Handles a frustrated colleague or customer calmly
Works across time zones or async where the role needs it
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Unclear written communication; goes quiet when things slip.
2
Needs Improvement
Communication needs chasing; raises problems late.
3
Satisfactory
Clear enough day to day; proactive updates are inconsistent.
4
Very Good
Clear, proactive, and calm under pressure.
5
Excellent
Handles the delay conversation with a revised time and reason, keeps notes that the next coordinator can act on cold.
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.
