Assessing a real estate project developer: a practical interview scorecard

1. Set five criteria before the interview

First define the responsibility the role will actually hold. A project developer taking sites through planning readiness needs a different emphasis from someone managing established projects through approval, marketing and handover.

Assess no more than five criteria. For each one, write down the observable evidence that would make an answer strong. This reduces the risk that polished communication hides gaps in professional judgement.

• Site and use: identify relevant data and state unresolved assumptions.
• Commercial judgement: prioritise revenue, cost, timing and financing risks.
• Process: structure next checks, dependencies and decision points.
• Stakeholders: distinguish the interests of owners, authorities, planners, investors and users.
• Recommendation: take a position and explain which new information would change it.

2. Use a fair, fictional case

Provide a short situation relevant to the role without sharing confidential information from a live project. For example, the business is considering an urban site for mixed use. The planning position is not fully clear, an initial cost estimate is available and two use concepts are possible.

Do not ask for a finished development appraisal. The objective is to understand the reasoning: what information is missing, which assumption is critical and which next step reduces the largest risk? Limit preparation to ten minutes and allow notes.

• Which three pieces of information would you obtain first?
• Which assumption has the greatest effect on the decision?
• Who must be involved before you make a recommendation?
• Under what condition would you pause the opportunity?

3. Keep the interview sequence consistent

A consistent sequence makes candidates comparable and gives them an equal opportunity to explain their experience. Hold clarifying questions until the first answer is complete, then use the same follow-up questions.

One possible allocation is five minutes for context, ten for preparation, fifteen for the case discussion, ten for a past project and five for the candidate’s questions. Adjust the timing to the role, but do not change the core exercise between interviews.

• Explain the objective, time and available information at the start.
• Record assumptions, priorities and reasoning during the answer.
• For past projects, ask about personal contribution and decision authority.
• Assess the treatment of uncertainty, not only the final answer.

4. Score answers on a four-point scale

Use a simple score from one to four for each criterion. An even scale avoids a default middle. The important step is to describe every level before the first interview.

For example, 1 means material risks are missed or claims are unsupported. A 2 shows a partly structured analysis with relevant gaps. A 3 is a clear, reasoned approach with sensible priorities. A 4 adds credible alternatives, dependencies and explicit decision points.

• Record scores independently immediately after each interview.
• Keep observations separate from interpretation.
• Do not change criteria afterwards to fit a preferred candidate.
• Discuss scoring differences using the candidate’s actual statements.

5. Test ownership through a past project

After the case, move to an anonymised project from the candidate’s experience. Ask about the starting situation, their responsibility, a difficult decision and the actual result. This distinguishes participation from genuine ownership of key analysis and recommendations.

Strong answers are transparent about limits. Candidates should be able to explain which data was unavailable, who made the final decision and what they would now do differently. Do not request confidential appraisals, contracts or customer data.

• What was your personal mandate on the project?
• Which decision did you prepare or own?
• Which assumption later proved incorrect?
• How did you adjust the course and explain it to stakeholders?

A scorecard does not replace professional judgement, but it makes the basis of that judgement visible. Set essential criteria, the case, questions and scoring anchors before the first conversation. Compare the documented evidence afterwards — not job titles, instinct or the most polished performance.