Use weighted criteria with technical knowledge 40%, problem-solving methodology 35%, and client communication 25%. Score each category from 1-5 with specific behavioural indicators and require minimum scores for technical competency and client service orientation. Adjust weightings based on your venue type: corporate events emphasise client communication, entertainment venues prioritise technical expertise, conference centres balance both equally.
Common misunderstanding: Using equal scoring weights instead of venue-specific priorities
Many hiring managers score AV technician interviews using equal weightings for all criteria without considering venue-specific requirements. Corporate event venues need stronger client communication weighting, whilst entertainment venues require heavier technical expertise weighting to match actual job demands.
Let's say you are scoring AV Technician candidates for a corporate conference centre. Don't weight technical skills and client communication equally. Client communication should be 35-40% because your technicians regularly interact with stressed executives and need to explain technical issues clearly to non-technical stakeholders.
Common misunderstanding: Scoring technical knowledge higher than problem-solving methodology
Some managers focus on technical knowledge over problem-solving methodology when scoring. System-specific knowledge becomes outdated quickly, whilst systematic troubleshooting approaches transfer across different equipment types, making problem-solving methodology more predictive of long-term success.
Let's say you are scoring two AV Technician candidates: one knows your exact equipment models but uses poor diagnostic processes, another uses excellent systematic troubleshooting but is unfamiliar with your specific brands. The second candidate will likely perform better long-term because good methodology transfers across systems.
Implement a multi-source evaluation combining interview responses, technical scenario performance, hands-on equipment assessment, and reference verification. Weight practical technical skills heavily whilst ensuring minimum client service standards. Use 30% formal interview responses, 40% technical scenario performance, 20% hands-on equipment assessment, and 10% reference verification for comprehensive evaluation.
Common misunderstanding: Relying too much on talking instead of practical demonstration
Some managers rely too heavily on interview responses without sufficient technical demonstration assessment. AV technician roles require hands-on technical competency that can only be evaluated through practical assessment, making scenario performance and equipment evaluation more predictive of job performance.
Let's say you are scoring an AV Technician candidate who gives excellent verbal answers about troubleshooting but struggles during the hands-on equipment test. The practical demonstration should carry more weight in your scoring because it better predicts their actual job performance.
Common misunderstanding: Undervaluing references for technical roles
Some managers undervalue reference verification for technical roles, assuming technical skills are easily assessed during interviews. Previous employers provide crucial insight into pressure management, client interaction effectiveness, and technical reliability over time, revealing patterns not observable during single assessment sessions.
Let's say you are evaluating an AV Technician candidate who performs well in interviews but their previous supervisor mentions they "sometimes struggle under pressure during live events." This reference insight reveals important information about real-world performance that you couldn't observe in an interview setting.
Establish specific performance indicators for each score level including technical proficiency examples, troubleshooting methodology descriptions, and communication quality standards. Use standardised scenarios and identical assessment conditions for fair comparison. Document specific examples of excellent, adequate, and inadequate responses to ensure consistent evaluation across multiple interviewers and different interview sessions.
Common misunderstanding: Creating vague scoring criteria instead of specific indicators
Many hiring managers create vague scoring criteria that allow too much subjective interpretation between different evaluators. Effective AV technician evaluation requires specific technical competency examples and clear behavioural indicators to ensure consistent assessment regardless of interviewer background.
Let's say you are creating scoring criteria for AV Technician interviews. Instead of "Good technical knowledge" (vague), specify "Correctly identifies common cable types, explains systematic diagnostic steps, and demonstrates proper equipment handling procedures." This ensures all interviewers score consistently.
Common misunderstanding: Not setting minimum technical standards
Some managers fail to establish minimum threshold requirements for critical technical competencies. AV technician roles have essential technical standards below which candidates cannot effectively perform core responsibilities, making threshold scoring essential for protecting event quality and client satisfaction.
Let's say you are scoring an AV Technician candidate who has excellent client communication skills but cannot demonstrate basic troubleshooting competency. Set minimum technical thresholds - if they can't meet basic technical standards, their other strengths won't compensate for the risk to your events and reputation.