Is it true that for brainstorming you need at least 3 top level buckets to sound like there’s enough breadth in ideas? what if you have 2 top level buckets and then 2-3 sub-buckets under each (for 2-3 ideas under each sub-bucket)..does that sound comprehensive or do you really need at least 3-4 top level buckets?
Hello,
In general, there is no “right” number of buckets. It is better to have 2 great buckets rather than have a 3rd weak/ far fetched one for the sake of adding an additional bucket..
However, the more relevant aspects you take into account and look into when solving a problem show the breadth of your considerations but it really depends on the question ..
No, you don't need 3. Though research does show that groups of 3 are more convincing than 4.
What you want to do is show you have structured the problem and thought about the important aspects. This can come in 2 buckets with subbuckets or 4.
There is no need to force yourself to have 3+ buckets. There are cases where 2 buckets for first layer of issue tree make perfect sense. E.g.,
You should further break this down into additional sub-buckets of course.
Generally speaking, most cases would have more than 2 buckets in the first layer of a “good” issue tree. But by no means, should you “force” this if it doesn't make sense to have more than 2 buckets
Hi there,
2 is perfectly fine! As long as they are MECE and logical AND you break down each into sub-buckets.
Of course, when I say 2 works, that doesn't mean you can do “Financial” and “Non-Financial”. This is “lazy”. If you can have 2 reasonable buckets however that are well thought-out and fit the case, absolutely go for it!
Hi!
It is not true!
It is important, though, that the buckets are MECE and that you can give a solid, well-communicated answer to the brainstorming question.
Hope this helps.
Best,
Anto
Hi there,
It totally depends on the question.
If you are analyzing costs and you divide them into fixed and variable, that’s two top-level buckets. However that’s MECE and it is totally fine as an initial division.
There is no obligation to always have 3+ buckets (which in the above example would be impossible using that division).
Best,
Francesco
There's no ‘right’ way of doing it.
And definitely you don't need a fixed, ‘x’, number of buckets.
You need to take time and then provide a structure, insightful and creative answer.
Here's a resource I put together on structuring techniques that you might find helpful:
Best,
Cristian
Hey there,
Depends on the context and case. For McKinsey, it is a balance between top-level and lower-level ideas.
You can generate excellent frameworks with just two top-levels as long as on the lower levels you expand the depth with insightful and concrete ideas.
If you want to know more about the McKinsey frameworks, have a look at this article I wrote: https://www.preplounge.com/en/mckinsey-interview
Cheers,
Florian
Consultants love number 3. :)
But they love even more structures that are simple, MECE, and adequate for the specific problem at hand. So the goal is not to reach a specific number, but to solve a specific problem.
Having said that, 2 to 4 is fine.
Hello,
Completely agree here, there is no right or wrong number of buckets. Generally speaking, in most cases you would want to have at least 3 or 4 buckets at the top level, but it is perfectly fine to have 2 top level buckets if it makes sense in the case (e.g. increase profitability → 1. Increase revenues ; 2. Increase costs). As long as the buckets make sense and are MECE, you should be fine.
Before we move into the actual answer - here is some observation from real world cases. 3 buckets are very cinematically charming while explaining. Its much more effective to drill something into client's heads when it is across 3 buckets. 2 buckets and they feel you have not done a good job. 4 buckets and they lose track. 3 is the sweet spot.
That said - in reality, in the pressure of a case interview - even 2 buckets are fine. UNLESS they are trivial buckets such as financial vs non-financial parameters. Better to break down the non-financial bucket into some other constituents such as strategic, operational, regulatory etc. etc.
Eventually, the purpose of the bucketing in a case interview is not just to create a logical structure that breaks down the case - but it also serves to communicate to the interviewer that you are thinking with a broader mindset.
Expertencase von