Interview scorecard template

Technical Illustrator interview scorecard

Evaluate Technical Illustrator candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so review exploded views, cutaways and illustrated parts catalogues in their portfolio; ask which were built from STEP or SolidWorks data versus drawn from photos and physical teardowns. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationcad conversioncreo illustrateexploded viewss1000d
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate shows multi-sheet assembly sequences, IPC figures and wiring schematics, naming the source CAD, the manual they shipped in, and the audience. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate explains why a particular section view, break line or profile weight was chosen, and how vector output stayed legible at print and tablet scale. 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 exploded views, cutaways and illustrated parts catalogues in their portfolio; ask which were built from STEP or SolidWorks data versus drawn from photos and physical teardowns.

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

Shows multi-sheet assembly sequences, IPC figures and wiring schematics, naming the source CAD, the manual they shipped in, and the audience.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Test line weight hierarchy, callout and leader conventions, view selection and standards command: ASME Y14.5, ATA iSpec 2200, S1000D CGM output, ISO 128 projection choices.

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

Explains why a particular section view, break line or profile weight was chosen, and how vector output stayed legible at print and tablet scale.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Probe how they handle engineering redlines, SME markups and late ECO changes; ask about rework cycles when part geometry or torque sequences changed mid-project.

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 rebuilding illustrations from revised CAD without starting over, using layered source files and version control to absorb repeated engineering changes.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Assess how they extract intent from incomplete specs: interviewing design engineers, reading assembly procedures, resolving conflicts between the written step and the physical hardware.

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

Questions ambiguous procedures before drawing, flags discrepancies back to engineering, and delivers to publication deadlines within Isodraw, Illustrator or DITA pipelines.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Technical Illustrator

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

  1. 01

    What types of technical illustrations are you most experienced with?

  2. 02

    Have you created illustrations for engineering or manufacturing use?

  3. 03

    Can you discuss a project where your illustrations improved a product's usability?

  4. 04

    What techniques do you use to ensure technical accuracy?

  5. 05

    Do you have experience working directly with engineers or technical staff?

See the complete Technical Illustrator 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