Curated assessment plan
Financial Controller
A proposed assessment plan for this vacancy: what to assess, how to assess it, who should assess it, and what evidence to record.
Generated in advance · synthetic scenario · human reviewed · no fresh AI analysis while browsing
Hiring-team review
Proposed assessment plan
Own hands-on group consolidation, close, reporting, controls, and finance-process improvement for a growing international multi-entity services group.
Expected scope: Experienced individual contributor or possible small-team lead based in Madrid, working across legal entities and with senior leaders, auditors, local finance teams, and operational stakeholders.
Combine or adapt stages to fit your hiring process while keeping every requirement covered.
Summary first
What this plan proposes
Role shape
- Experienced individual contributor or possible small-team lead based in Madrid, working across legal entities and with senior leaders, auditors, local finance teams, and operational stakeholders.
Proposed stages
- Initial eligibility and experience verification
- Finance work sample and review
- Transformation and stakeholder panel
Required coverage
- 9 of 9 required requirements assessed
Required gaps
- No required-requirement gaps in this plan
Preferred coverage
- 6 of 6 preferred requirements assessed
Needs clarification
- 5 clarify first · 4 also worth confirming
- The role's formal responsibility for two accountants is undecided.
- Relocation assistance and work-authorization sponsorship are unresolved.
- The acceptable depth and recency of ERP experience are not defined.
View full assessment planCoverage · clarifications · stages · activities · scorecards
Assessment overview
Financial Controller
Plan coverage
Requirements covered
Required 9 assessed · 0 not coveredPreferred 6 formally assessed · 0 not explicitly assessed
Strong financial controlling or group-accounting experience in a multi-entity environment.
1 assessment area for Strong financial controlling or group-accounting experience in a multi-entity environment.Personal ownership of group consolidation, including direct work with consolidated accounts—not solely entity-level submissions.
1 assessment area for Personal ownership of group consolidation, including direct work with consolidated accounts—not solely entity-level submissions.Practical ownership or delivery experience in monthly close.
1 assessment area for Practical ownership or delivery experience in monthly close.Strong IFRS knowledge and confidence applying standards to reporting decisions.
1 assessment area for Strong IFRS knowledge and confidence applying standards to reporting decisions.Experience producing both management and statutory reporting and coordinating with external auditors.
1 assessment area for Experience producing both management and statutory reporting and coordinating with external auditors.Sound knowledge of financial controls, reconciliations, supporting documentation, and audit trails.
1 assessment area for Sound knowledge of financial controls, reconciliations, supporting documentation, and audit trails.Experience using ERP systems, plus strong spreadsheet and financial-analysis skills.
1 assessment area for Experience using ERP systems, plus strong spreadsheet and financial-analysis skills.Professional English and the ability to communicate financial matters to senior and non-finance stakeholders.
1 assessment area for Professional English and the ability to communicate financial matters to senior and non-finance stakeholders.Ability to work from Madrid under a hybrid model requiring three office days per week.
1 assessment area for Ability to work from Madrid under a hybrid model requiring three office days per week.SAP S/4HANA experience, with improvement experience on another major ERP accepted as relevant.
1 assessment area for SAP S/4HANA experience, with improvement experience on another major ERP accepted as relevant.Finance-transformation, close-acceleration, or ERP implementation or upgrade experience.
1 assessment area for Finance-transformation, close-acceleration, or ERP implementation or upgrade experience.Exposure to Spanish GAAP.
1 assessment area for Exposure to Spanish GAAP.Professional Spanish for collaboration with local stakeholders.
1 assessment area for Professional Spanish for collaboration with local stakeholders.Experience in a growing or changing organization where processes and ownership are being standardized.
1 assessment area for Experience in a growing or changing organization where processes and ownership are being standardized.Prior coaching, coordination, or small-team leadership experience.
1 assessment area for Prior coaching, coordination, or small-team leadership experience.Open hiring questions
Needs clarification
These questions do not count as candidate criteria or assessment coverage.
Clarify first
These questions can materially change who you target or how the role should be assessed.
Non-scored
The role's formal responsibility for two accountants is undecided.
Direct management versus coordination changes seniority, candidate expectations, title calibration, and leadership screening.
Question: Will the controller have direct reports, including performance reviews and work allocation, or only coordinate and coach the two accountants?
Non-scored
Relocation assistance and work-authorization sponsorship are unresolved.
This determines whether sourcing can include candidates outside Madrid, Spain, or the currently authorized labor pool.
Question: Will the company offer relocation support, Spanish work-authorization sponsorship, either, or neither—and must candidates already be able to work in Spain?
Non-scored
The acceptable depth and recency of ERP experience are not defined.
The description requires ERP experience, while the notes prefer SAP S/4HANA and accept improvement experience with another major ERP; this could materially narrow or broaden the pool.
Question: Is routine ERP use sufficient, or must candidates have led process improvements, testing, implementation, or upgrades—and which non-SAP systems count as major ERPs?
Non-scored
The scope and frequency of travel are unspecified.
Travel expectations can affect candidate eligibility and closing feasibility.
Question: What travel frequency, typical destinations, and trip duration should candidates expect?
Non-scored
The first-year target to reduce close from eight to five working days may depend on authority, resources, systems, and entity readiness that are not described.
The controller is expected to maintain hands-on recurring delivery while also redesigning processes across multiple entities; feasibility will vary with current data quality and stakeholder support.
Question: What are the main causes of the current eight-day close, what resources and decision authority will the controller have, and is five days a firm performance commitment or an aspirational target?
Also worth confirming
These details are still useful to settle before the hiring process is finalized.
Non-scored
Compensation range and employment package
Pay and package alignment materially affect market calibration and closing feasibility.
Question: What are the approved base-salary range, variable compensation, and material benefits for the Madrid role?
Non-scored
Required level of professional accounting qualification
No credential requirement is stated; deciding whether one is required would materially affect eligibility.
Question: Is a professional accounting qualification required, preferred, or unnecessary, and are equivalent international credentials accepted?
Non-scored
Scale and complexity of consolidation ownership
Entity count, jurisdictions, currencies, and consolidation complexity are necessary to calibrate comparable experience and seniority.
Question: What are the approximate number of entities, countries, currencies, and major consolidation complexities the role will own?
Non-scored
Reporting line and decision authority
This affects role positioning, seniority, influence over local teams, and candidate expectations.
Question: Who does the role report to, and what authority will it have to enforce group close deadlines, accounting policies, and control standards across entities?
Proposed hiring assessment process
Proposed stages
3 stages · sequence may be combined or adapted
Stage 1
Initial eligibility and experience verification
Confirm the attendance condition and establish factual scope before specialist assessment.
Assessment activity → assessor
- Structured experience verification
Recruiter / TARecruiter briefed on the Madrid hybrid condition and prohibited from adding unstated mobility or authorization criteria.
- Structured experience verification
Hiring ManagerFinance leader experienced in multi-entity close and consolidation and able to distinguish ownership from participation.
Stage 2
Finance work sample and review
Gather job-relevant evidence through a bounded multi-entity close and reporting exercise.
Assessment activity → assessor
- Case study
PanelPanel including an IFRS-qualified senior accountant or auditor and a controller with statutory reporting, controls, and external-audit experience.
- Presentation
PanelFinance systems or controllership SME plus a senior operational stakeholder accustomed to receiving financial explanations in English.
Stage 3
Transformation and stakeholder panel
Assess change delivery, communication, and preferred contextual experience without duplicating technical validation.
Assessment activity → assessor
- Structured behavioral
Hiring ManagerFinance leader who has sponsored or delivered close acceleration, finance transformation, or major-ERP change.
- Technical discussion
Domain SMEBilingual English-Spanish finance professional familiar with Spanish statutory accounting context and workplace finance terminology.
- Structured behavioral
Cross-functional PartnerSenior finance partner experienced in collaborating with controllers and small accounting teams.
Progressive detail
Activities, tasks and questions
7 evidence-gathering activities
Stage 1 · activity.01Structured experience verificationRecruiter / TA
Primary question
This role is based in Madrid and requires three office days per week. Are you able to meet that working arrangement?
Probes
- If relevant, what timing or practical constraint should the company understand?
Stage 1 · activity.02Structured experience verificationHiring Manager
Primary question
Describe the multi-entity environment in which you had your strongest personal responsibility for controlling, group consolidation, and monthly close.
Probes
- Which consolidation steps and consolidated accounts did you personally prepare, review, or approve?
- What did local entities submit, and what work remained yours at group level?
- How was the monthly close organized, and which deadlines, dependencies, and issues did you own?
- What was the scale and complexity, and what outcomes can be attributed to your work?
Stage 2 · activity.03Case studyPanel
Candidate task
Review a fictitious month-end pack for a small international group containing entity trial-balance extracts, intercompany differences, selected accounting events, draft management reporting, reconciliation gaps, and auditor requests. Prepare: (1) a consolidation and close issue log; (2) analysis of the IFRS matters, including facts still needed and proposed treatment for SME review; (3) recommended corrections or follow-up for management and statutory reporting; and (4) a prioritized controls, documentation, and audit-trail plan.
Expected artifact
A concise issue log and written briefing showing analysis, assumptions, open questions, proposed actions, owners, and supporting-evidence needs.
Constraints
Provide a reasonable time box and accessible spreadsheet templates. The exercise must not require memorized paragraph citations, unpaid production work, knowledge of undisclosed company systems, or a single fabricated authoritative solution.
Stage 2 · activity.04PresentationPanel
Candidate task
Present the case findings in English as if briefing a senior finance leader, then restate the two most important implications and requested actions for a non-finance operational stakeholder. Walk through the spreadsheet structure, checks, and limitations, and explain how comparable source-to-report work has been performed in an ERP.
Expected artifact
A short English briefing, audience-adjusted explanation, and live walkthrough of the candidate’s case workbook and relevant ERP experience.
Constraints
Assess reasoning, traceability, and clarity rather than visual design or accent. Do not require a particular ERP platform or advanced feature depth while the acceptable ERP threshold remains unresolved.
Stage 3 · activity.05Structured behavioralHiring Manager
Primary question
Tell us about the most relevant finance-process, close-acceleration, or ERP change you helped deliver in a growing or changing organization.
Probes
- Which ERP and process areas were involved, and was this routine use, improvement, testing, implementation, or upgrade work?
- What did you personally own and what authority did you have?
- How did you maintain recurring finance delivery while processes or ownership were changing?
- How did you establish adoption, controls, and sustainable ownership?
Stage 3 · activity.06Technical discussionDomain SME
Primary question
Please summarize any work you have done involving Spanish GAAP, including your personal responsibilities. Then, in Spanish, explain to a local operational stakeholder why a month-end reconciliation issue requires their input and what you need from them.
Probes
- For the Spanish GAAP work, what decisions or outputs were yours and who reviewed specialist conclusions?
- In Spanish, how would you check that the stakeholder understood the requested action and deadline?
Stage 3 · activity.07Structured behavioralCross-functional Partner
Primary question
Describe a time you coached accountants or coordinated a small finance team to improve the quality or timeliness of recurring work.
Probes
- Were you a direct manager, project lead, peer coordinator, or coach?
- How did you allocate or coordinate work, review quality, and address capability gaps?
- What changed as a result, and how did you know?
Consistent evidence record
Scorecard criteria
15 dimension-linked criteria
Use these criteria to help interviewers record evidence consistently. Weak or concerning evidence and insufficient evidence are different process facts. No aggregate score or hiring recommendation is generated.
criterion.01Multi-entity controlling experience3 evidence states
Record entities or jurisdictions, role scope, recurring responsibilities, complexity, and attributable outcomes without imposing an unstated scale minimum.
Strong Evidence
Substantial personal controlling or group-accounting responsibility across multiple entities, with clear scope, judgment, and outcomes.
Weak or Concerning Evidence
Relevant experience is predominantly single-entity, narrowly transactional, or described without meaningful group-level responsibility.
Insufficient Evidence Gathered
The environment or candidate’s personal scope was not established clearly enough to judge.
criterion.02Group consolidation ownership3 evidence states
Record consolidation steps personally owned and distinguish them from entity submissions or observation.
Strong Evidence
Clear end-to-end or materially substantive ownership of consolidated accounts, including review and resolution of group-level issues.
Weak or Concerning Evidence
Experience was limited to submitting entity data or assisting without direct responsibility for consolidated outputs.
Insufficient Evidence Gathered
No clear boundary was established between the candidate’s work and that of the consolidation owner.
criterion.03Monthly close delivery3 evidence states
Capture close cadence, owned tasks, dependencies, issue handling, deadlines, and delivery outcomes.
Strong Evidence
Direct, recurring ownership of material monthly-close activities with credible planning, review, issue resolution, and timely delivery.
Weak or Concerning Evidence
Only peripheral participation, unclear accountability, or repeated delivery problems without effective response.
Insufficient Evidence Gathered
Monthly-close responsibilities and outcomes were not explored sufficiently.
criterion.04Applied IFRS judgment3 evidence states
Qualified SME records reasoning, facts requested, applicable IFRS areas, treatment rationale, uncertainty, and escalation; no fabricated answer key.
Strong Evidence
Identifies material IFRS issues, seeks relevant facts, applies coherent principles, documents judgments, and recognizes uncertainty or specialist-review needs.
Weak or Concerning Evidence
Applies unsupported or materially flawed reasoning, overlooks significant issues, or presents uncertain conclusions as facts.
Insufficient Evidence Gathered
The case or discussion did not expose enough applied IFRS reasoning for an SME judgment.
criterion.05Management, statutory, and audit reporting3 evidence states
Record evidence relating separately to management reporting, statutory reporting, and external-audit coordination.
Strong Evidence
Demonstrates credible ownership of both reporting forms and organized, evidence-based coordination of audit requests and issue resolution.
Weak or Concerning Evidence
Experience covers only one reporting form, or audit coordination and reporting controls appear unreliable.
Insufficient Evidence Gathered
Evidence did not establish the candidate’s role across both reporting and external audit.
criterion.06Controls and audit trails3 evidence states
Record risk-control linkage, reconciliation approach, documentation, ownership, review evidence, and audit-trail quality.
Strong Evidence
Prioritizes material risks and proposes workable preventive or detective controls, disciplined reconciliations, clear support, and traceable review evidence.
Weak or Concerning Evidence
Controls are generic, poorly linked to risks, lack ownership or evidence, or leave material reconciliation issues unresolved.
Insufficient Evidence Gathered
The exercise did not provide enough control or reconciliation evidence to judge.
criterion.07ERP, spreadsheet, and financial analysis capability3 evidence states
Record named ERP workflows separately from spreadsheet design, checks, traceability, analysis, and limitations.
Strong Evidence
Shows credible hands-on ERP use and a well-structured, checked, traceable spreadsheet analysis supporting defensible financial conclusions.
Weak or Concerning Evidence
ERP experience is vague or spreadsheet work is error-prone, opaque, uncontrolled, or analytically weak.
Insufficient Evidence Gathered
No meaningful ERP workflow or inspectable analysis was elicited.
criterion.08Professional English and financial communication3 evidence states
Record clarity, precision, audience adaptation, explanation of implications, and action requests; do not score accent or presentation aesthetics.
Strong Evidence
Communicates complex finance matters clearly in professional English and adapts implications and requested actions effectively for senior and non-finance audiences.
Weak or Concerning Evidence
Communication is materially unclear, inaccurate, or not adapted enough for stakeholders to act safely.
Insufficient Evidence Gathered
Too little English stakeholder communication was observed to judge.
criterion.09Madrid hybrid availability3 evidence states
Record the candidate’s exact confirmation, constraint, or uncertainty; do not add sponsorship, residence, or relocation assumptions.
Strong Evidence
Candidate clearly confirms ability to work from Madrid three office days per week.
Weak or Concerning Evidence
Candidate clearly states they cannot meet the stated arrangement or describes a direct incompatibility.
Insufficient Evidence Gathered
Candidate cannot yet confirm because relevant timing or unresolved company support is unknown.
criterion.10SAP S/4HANA or major-ERP improvement experience3 evidence states
Record platform, recency, process scope, improvement role, and outcomes; recognize SAP S/4HANA or relevant major-ERP improvement evidence.
Strong Evidence
Provides specific SAP S/4HANA experience or substantive improvement work on another major ERP with clear personal contribution and outcome.
Weak or Concerning Evidence
Claimed experience is superficial, limited to routine use without relevant improvement evidence, or cannot be attributed to the candidate.
Insufficient Evidence Gathered
System, depth, or contribution was not established.
criterion.11Finance transformation experience3 evidence states
Record problem, baseline, candidate ownership, implementation actions, stakeholder adoption, controls, and results.
Strong Evidence
Demonstrates substantive contribution to close acceleration, finance transformation, or ERP change with disciplined delivery and sustainable results.
Weak or Concerning Evidence
Participation was peripheral, change was poorly controlled, or claimed impact lacks credible support.
Insufficient Evidence Gathered
No sufficiently detailed transformation example was gathered.
criterion.12Spanish GAAP exposure3 evidence states
Record the specific Spanish GAAP context, tasks, depth, and review arrangements without assuming expertise from general IFRS work.
Strong Evidence
Shows practical, relevant Spanish GAAP exposure with clearly bounded personal responsibilities and credible outputs.
Weak or Concerning Evidence
Exposure is only nominal or the candidate overstates unsupported depth.
Insufficient Evidence Gathered
No usable evidence of Spanish GAAP exposure was gathered.
criterion.13Professional Spanish3 evidence states
Record workplace comprehensibility, finance vocabulary, responsiveness, and ability to request action; do not score accent.
Strong Evidence
Collaborates clearly and professionally in Spanish on a realistic finance matter and checks shared understanding.
Weak or Concerning Evidence
Spanish communication creates material misunderstanding or cannot convey the needed finance action.
Insufficient Evidence Gathered
The Spanish sample was too short or unsupported to judge professional collaboration ability.
criterion.14Effectiveness in a growing or changing organization3 evidence states
Record how recurring delivery was protected while processes, ownership, or structures changed.
Strong Evidence
Shows effective delivery amid ambiguity while establishing clearer, sustainable processes and ownership with stakeholder adoption.
Weak or Concerning Evidence
Relies on stable structures, responds poorly to ambiguity, or introduces changes without sustainable ownership.
Insufficient Evidence Gathered
The example did not establish a genuinely growing or changing context.
criterion.15Coaching or small-team coordination3 evidence states
Record actual authority, coaching or coordination behaviors, quality mechanisms, and outcomes; do not require direct-management experience.
Strong Evidence
Provides a concrete example of effective coaching or coordination that improved capability, quality, or timeliness within the candidate’s actual authority.
Weak or Concerning Evidence
Example shows unclear contribution, ineffective support, or reliance on authority without coaching or coordination practice.
Insufficient Evidence Gathered
No detailed example of coaching, coordination, or small-team leadership was obtained.
What to assess
Assessment areas
Each assessment area keeps the required or preferred status from the agreed hiring requirement.
requireddimension.01
Multi-entity controlling experience
Verify relevant group-level financial controlling or accounting experience across multiple entities.
What good evidence looks like
Specific experience operating across entities, including scope, complexity, personal responsibilities, judgment, and outcomes.
requireddimension.02
Group consolidation ownership
Distinguish direct ownership of consolidated accounts from entity-level submission work.
What good evidence looks like
End-to-end personal ownership of consolidation activities, review, issue resolution, and consolidated outputs.
requireddimension.03
Monthly close delivery
Assess practical ownership and reliable delivery of recurring monthly close.
What good evidence looks like
Direct responsibility for close planning, dependencies, review, issue management, deadlines, and completed outputs.
Hiring requirementPractical ownership or delivery experience in monthly close.
requireddimension.04
Applied IFRS judgment
Assess whether the candidate can apply IFRS confidently to reporting decisions.
What good evidence looks like
Accurate, structured analysis of relevant accounting issues, identification of required facts, documented judgments, and escalation where appropriate.
requireddimension.05
Management, statutory, and audit reporting
Verify experience producing internal and statutory reporting and coordinating external audit delivery.
What good evidence looks like
Personal production or ownership of both reporting types, reconciliation between purposes, audit coordination, and timely resolution of requests.
requireddimension.06
Controls and audit trails
Assess practical knowledge of controls, reconciliations, documentation, and reliable audit evidence.
What good evidence looks like
Ability to identify reporting risks, design or operate proportionate controls, investigate reconciliations, and preserve reviewable evidence.
requireddimension.07
ERP, spreadsheet, and financial analysis capability
Verify hands-on ERP use and the ability to analyze financial information effectively with spreadsheets.
What good evidence looks like
Concrete ERP workflows plus a transparent, controlled spreadsheet analysis that supports defensible conclusions.
requireddimension.08
Professional English and financial communication
Assess professional English and communication of financial matters to senior and non-finance audiences.
What good evidence looks like
Clear, audience-appropriate explanation of financial findings, implications, uncertainty, and requested actions in English.
requireddimension.09
Madrid hybrid availability
Confirm ability to meet the stated Madrid attendance condition without inferring unresolved sponsorship or relocation rules.
What good evidence looks like
A direct statement confirming or not confirming ability to work from Madrid three office days per week.
preferreddimension.10
SAP S/4HANA or major-ERP improvement experience
Identify preferred SAP S/4HANA experience or relevant improvement work on another major ERP.
What good evidence looks like
Specific system, role, process area, improvement contribution, and resulting operational or control outcome.
preferreddimension.11
Finance transformation experience
Assess experience improving close, implementing finance change, or supporting ERP implementation or upgrades.
What good evidence looks like
A defined transformation problem, candidate-owned actions, stakeholder dependencies, adoption approach, and measurable or observable result.
preferreddimension.12
Spanish GAAP exposure
Verify useful prior exposure to Spanish GAAP without treating it as mandatory.
What good evidence looks like
Specific work involving Spanish GAAP and a bounded account of the candidate’s personal depth and responsibilities.
Hiring requirementExposure to Spanish GAAP.
preferreddimension.13
Professional Spanish
Assess ability to collaborate with local stakeholders in Spanish.
What good evidence looks like
A short professional discussion in Spanish conveying finance-related information clearly enough for workplace collaboration.
Hiring requirementProfessional Spanish for collaboration with local stakeholders.
preferreddimension.14
Effectiveness in a growing or changing organization
Assess experience delivering recurring finance work while processes and ownership were being standardized.
What good evidence looks like
A concrete example balancing delivery with ambiguity, process definition, stakeholder alignment, and sustainable improvement.
preferreddimension.15
Coaching or small-team coordination
Assess prior coaching, coordination, or small-team leadership without assuming formal people-management scope.
What good evidence looks like
Specific responsibility for coaching or coordinating others, methods used, boundaries of authority, and impact on quality or delivery.
Hiring requirementPrior coaching, coordination, or small-team leadership experience.
Next step
Prepare the debrief
See how synthetic interview evidence is organized against this plan's criteria and required or preferred status.
View the debrief example →