"Hacking the Case Interview" advises you to use a profitability framework that usually includes the buckets company financials, customers, market, and competition. company financials is a bucket that breaks down costs and revenues while the rest are possible drivers for the problem. However, can this be considered MECE? After all, all the other buckets can fall into cost or revenue. I really love the structure, but I feel like I should just divide everything into costs and revenues and go from there. Is it okay if I say "I first want to look at the quantitative breakdown of our finances then I want to look at possible drivers like customers, competition and market."? What would you recommend?
Schedule mock interviews on the Meeting Board, join the latest community discussions in our Consulting Q&A and find like-minded Interview Partners to connect and practice with!
Back to overview
Be the first to answer!
Nobody has responded to this question yet.
Hi, great question! Personally, I would not recommend it for the same reasons that you mentioned - that it is hard to explain this in a MECE manner. The elements of this framework are great to keep in mind when talking about revenue and cost levers. Imagine solving a real client problem - we are likely to truly look at it in terms of revenues and costs. Thinking about buckets as areas of analysis helps rather than something theoretical
Honestly, I wouldn't use this structure to begin with.
By now, any interviewer can sniff out from a mile away that you're using a pre-learned framework (e.g., company, competition, customer...) and they'll be turned off by that.
Instead, aim to structure from first principles and use as much as possible your common sense.
Even on a more basic level, you can look at the profitability equation as an alternative structure that at least is rooted in your mathematical understanding of the term.
You might also find these resources useful:
Best,
Cristian
Hi,
Thanks for your question.
I agree with you. I would have revenue-cost under profitability framework, and then split revenue by price*volume, and then discuss the different sub buckets driving these categories (market, customer, competitor, product etc.), fixed and variable cost.
Then you could say - do we know if it is a cost or revenue issue? If not, I would like to first start with revenue and go over some of the key drivers.
Remember, as much as you want to keep your framework MECE, the goal of the framework is to guide you through the problem to find the issue and solve for it. So you don't want to make your framework confusing or too detailed. So keep it simple and high level and talk through your buckets and thinking.
Hope that helps. Feel free to reach out.
Thanks,
Soh
Hey Mena :)
You’re absolutely right to think critically about MECE here. A pure profitability framework (revenues vs. costs) is the most MECE and safest for quantitative diagnosis. The “company, customer, market, competition” approach is broader, it’s helpful when you suspect the root cause lies beyond just numbers (for example, strategic positioning or market shifts). Your phrasing works perfectly: start with the financial breakdown, then move to qualitative drivers like customers or competition. That balance shows structure and business intuition.
best, Alessa :)
Hi there,
I agree with you that the approach to have customers, market, and competition separate is harder to explain as at it intuitively does not sound MECE. It CAN be more MECE if the buckets are elaborated further to distinguish what the customers, market, and competition covers that the company's financials may not cover (e.g. more qualitative information that are not direct drivers of revenues and costs such as customer preferences and pain points, barriers of entry).
My suggestion is to use a framework that YOU feel confident about defending. If you don't believe in it, don't try to defend someone else's beliefs.
