Rubric for Analytical Interviews

Note: For more detail on how Exponent's interview rubrics work, check out this lesson.

Now that you know how to answer analytical questions, let's look at how they're scored.

Core Skills to Show in Analytical Interviews

Analytical questions generally assess analytical skills, critical thinking and culture fit. Companies often use a scoring system with five options ranging from "missing" or "very weak" to "very strong." Interviewers score core qualities on this five-point scale during each round, and take turns sharing their feedback during the hiring discussion.

Analytical skills include data literacy (can you work with data?) and comfort with metrics (can you choose and interpret the right metrics for a given problem?)

Critical thinking skills include the ability to diagnose problems, the ability to prioritize, and the ability to execute a plan.

Culture fit signals include communication, collaboration, and curiosity.

Let's dive into each.

Data Literacy

Working with data is a core PM skill. Interviewers are looking for how you analyze data; whether you can identify patterns, suggest tests to run, and draw reasonable conclusions.

• Very Weak or Missing: Failed to use data to answer the question.
• Weak: Failed to identify obvious patterns in data.
• Neutral: Fair ability to reason with data, but missed key points.
• Strong: Used data effectively; asked good questions, made solid assumptions, formed logical conclusions.
• Very Strong: Extracted valuable insights from data; identified key patterns, suggested reports/tests to run, made logical arguments.

Comfort with Metrics

A working knowledge of common metrics around core data like user acquisition, retention and usage is critical. Even more important is knowing when to use one metric versus another - and what insights you draw from each.

• Very Weak or Missing: Failed to show a basic understanding of relevant metrics.
• Weak: Struggled to define metrics for given problems and/or compare different metrics.
• Neutral: Reasonable knowledge, but missed "best fit" metrics for a given problem.
• Strong: Clearly discussed pros and cons of various metrics, made a solid argument for choice(s).
• Very Strong: Metrics thoroughly and accurately discussed, recommended ways to streamline analytical processes.

Ability to Diagnose Problems

Understanding how to scope problems is critical to problem-solving in a business context. You have so much data available - it's key that you break down problems such that you can create an action plan.

• Very Weak or Missing: Failed to probe the origin of the problem; rushed into an answer.
• Weak: Attempted to diagnose, but made serious errors or needed significant guidance.
• Neutral: Fair diagnosis, but missed nuances.
• Strong: Asked good questions and used answers effectively to scope a solvable problem.
• Very Strong: Asked insightful questions; set up a clear, easy-to-use test plan.

Ability to Prioritize

If you've scoped the problem well, you probably have a few hypotheses as to what's going wrong. Interviewers are looking for you to prioritize which to address first in a way that makes sense.

• Very Weak or Missing: Failed to prioritize efforts when solving a problem.
• Weak: Prioritization was sloppy or had obvious errors.
• Neutral: Prioritization fair, given a nudge or two.
• Strong: Prioritized effectively; accounted for urgency, cost/benefit, testability, etc.
• Very Strong: Prioritized admirably; proposed plan provided maximum benefit with minimal cost.

Ability to Execute a Plan

The final step - execution. A great plan is useless if you don't know how to put it in place. Interviewers want to hear your step-by-step explanation of how you'll test your hypotheses, interpret results, and pivot if necessary.

• Very Weak or Missing: Failed to define a clear plan to solve the problem.
• Weak: Struggled to communicate action plan in an executable way.
• Neutral: Plan was well-defined but missed key points, or the intuition was there but the plan wasn't fully executable.
• Strong: Correctly identified key elements of the problem, provided appropriate solutions, KPIs.
• Very Strong: Plan was clear and complete; Best-fit KPIs, bottlenecks/potential errors were accounted for, and alternative solutions given.

Communication

Communication is assessed in every interview.

• Very Weak or Missing: Failed to communicate clearly despite repeated prompts.
• Weak: Poor communication throughout; interviewer had trouble following despite prompts.
• Neutral: Communication varied. Clear in some areas but vague / incomplete in others.
• Strong: Good communication skills; articulated thought process clearly and consistently.
• Very Strong: Clear, proactive communication; anticipated questions, articulated reasons for decision, "checked-in" throughout.

Collaboration

Analytical interviews almost require you collaborate with your interviewer. Don't forget to make use of them as a resource!

• Very Weak or Missing: Failed to take the lead, didn't respond to guidance.
• Weak: Struggled to stay on track without guidance.
• Neutral: Took the lead and performed well, but may have needed redirects or hints.
• Strong: Effectively led the discussion, involved the interviewer throughout.
• Very Strong: Took the lead and made exceptional use of the interviewer, discussion was more collaboration than interview.

Curiosity

PM's must have a good sense for problem-solving, and that requires curiosity. Interviewers want to see you light up when you're working to get to the bottom of something.

• Very Weak or Missing: Failed to show interest and / or ask good questions.
• Weak: Attempted to collect information, but failed to intuit the right areas to dig into.
• Neutral: Asked good questions / had good ideas, but missed key points.
• Strong: Asked great questions, worked to understand the entire problem context.
• Very Strong: Gathered information effectively; asked insightful and /or surprising questions that got to the heart of the issue.