A couple of weeks ago I had to do a week of interviews of very senior architects and it was a very interesting experience. I came into it with a fair amount of cynicism but actually it worked remarkable well.
The format was that people applied and sent in a resume along with documentary evidence of their work. There were then 4 architects on a board who reviewed this massive amount of documentation and interviewed the candidates. This took the form of a 30 min presentation about the project evidence submitted and then 30 mins of questions on the evidence (both written and presented). There was a 5 minute break with the interviewee not present whilst the board discussed what areas the interviewee should be examined in more detail. Then there was another hour of more general questions. Finally there was 30 minutes private discussion and a go / no go vote.
The areas assessed were:
Process and result focus
Even though the bar was extremely high a number of interviewees passed but the things that stood out in my mind were how well these categories assessed what qualities architects need and how architects are generally very much in agreement on what makes a good architect.
It was a very high pressure week for everyone and every interviewee caused a huge amount of debate and discussion, in different areas every time.
Interestingly I put down in the first 5 minutes whether I thought someone would pass or not and was 100% correct both with my own final opinion and the boards final opinion.