When a solar R&D director vacancy remains open, increasing the number of CVs may not solve the problem. The search can be stalled by unresolved decisions inside the business: which technical objective matters most, what the director will control and what evidence will persuade the hiring team.
A useful review starts with the brief and works forward through sourcing, assessment and the offer. At UB hunter, we use the following five questions to identify where a search needs to change.
1. What technical outcome must the director deliver?
Improving an established production process is a different assignment from taking a new technology through pilot development. State which objective has priority, what the organisation has already decided and which choices the incoming director is expected to make.
If the technical direction is still open, say so. The role may require someone who can evaluate alternatives and build a development plan. It should not be advertised as a settled delivery assignment while the interviews test an entirely different mandate. Agree the first major milestone and the resources available to reach it.
2. Do you need a technical authority, an R&D leader, or both?
A technical authority may be strongest at evaluating a scientific approach or solving a difficult process problem. An R&D leader may bring particular strength in programme management, team development, Manufacturing transfer and coordination with operations. Some candidates combine these capabilities, but the required balance still needs to be explicit.
Describe the team around the director. If a chief scientist already owns long-term research, explain how the director will work with that person. If the director will be the most senior technical voice, assess the judgement and accountability that arrangement requires. Avoid evaluating every candidate against a different version of the job.
3. Does the employment proposition support the mandate?
Review compensation alongside the authority, budget, facilities and team the candidate would inherit. A substantial target without the means to achieve it can make an otherwise attractive offer difficult to accept.
Explain the fixed and variable elements of compensation, how performance will be evaluated and which approvals are still outstanding. Use current evidence for the particular role and location when reviewing the budget. A historic salary attached to a similar title is not enough to establish what this assignment requires.
4. Is the search following relevant capability or only familiar employers?
Direct competitors can be a useful starting point, but a company-name filter can miss people with relevant process, equipment, materials or scale-up experience. Ask the technical team which neighbouring fields share problems with the planned programme, and which gaps would make a transfer impractical.
For every additional talent pool, define the evidence to look for. A wider company list is useful only when there is a technical reason for including it. Explore learning needs openly and assess what the person actually delivered rather than relying on an employer's reputation.
5. Can the interview team make a timely, evidence-based decision?
Allocate a puRPOse to each interview. Technical depth, programme judgement, leadership and working relationships need assessment, but repeating the same technical discussion with several people may add little information.
Agree the final decision-maker, feedback deadlines and offer approval route before candidates reach the last stage. Ask interviewers to record evidence against the agreed requirements. When feedback says that someone is 'not quite right', identify the missing capability rather than adding another unstructured interview.
Restart with a shared decision record
Document what changed in the mandate, candidate profile, resources, sourcing approach and assessment process. Brief everyone involved in the search. This gives the next candidate conversations a consistent starting point and lets the business distinguish a difficult market from an internally inconsistent hiring decision.