This is the problem with most interviews. How can you make a determination if you don't have data to back up a decision. Interviews are pointless if you aren't

This is the problem with most interviews. How can you make a determination if you don't have data to back up a decision. Interviews are pointless if you aren't planning on extracting information that determines whether the candidate is a good fit for the role you are hiring them for. I take a first principles approach to hiring. 1) We need X. What skills/characteristics are required/desired/ideal for executing X. 2) Read through resume, and look for potential experience that supports the skills/characteristics you are looking for. 3) Craft questions that help you paint a picture of how qualified the person is to do X and whether they will fit into your org. I usually build a few questions to understand the following about a candidate: How involved were they in projects that are relevant to X. Dig into the technical on those. Ask some questions that only someone who did what they said would be able to smoothly answer. Open ended creative problem solving question to assess creativity, persistence, and working knowledge. Deeper technical expertise question. This is usually language specific, coding, and a rabbit hole of a question, where you can keep pushing till you reach the limit of their understanding. General communication skills, personability, and interests, I pick up on over the coarse of the interview. The other thing is, if you are an individual contributor and are left on your own to figure out what the role requires, and what to focus on, then I'd argue that the interview process at your company is flawed. A manager should brief his team on what they are looking for, and distribute points to assess for amongst the panel. Otherwise you will inevitably have a lot of overlap, which will result in false positives.