Framework depth - looking for advice

Question

I'm preparing for a McKinsey associate first round and getting consistent feedback that my frameworks are too generic and my sub-buckets turn into lists.

Two specific questions:

1. Standard vs. custom For a profitability case, is "revenue and costs" sufficient at the top level, or does McKinsey expect customization there too — for example, "revenue per passenger" for an airline case? Where does standard structure end and tailoring begin?

2. Sub-bucket depth Within revenue, should my sub-points be structural components like price × volume, or specific drivers tailored to the client — like "is pricing under pressure due to commoditization"? I keep generating lists of associated ideas rather than a logical breakdown with a clear governing rationale.

Any advice from coaches or people who've been through McKinsey interviews recently?

Thank you!

Answer 1

Good question and honestly, this is exactly where a lot of candidates get stuck.

A couple of thoughts based on what I typically coach during my mock interviews.

1. Standard vs. custom (top level)
In a profitability case, I wouldn’t overcomplicate the first layer. “Revenues and costs” is perfectly fine and in most cases, actually preferred.

Where candidates go wrong is trying to be clever too early. If you jump straight to something like “revenue per passenger,” you often lose clarity and, more importantly, risk missing parts of the problem.

So as a rule of thumb:

Keep the first layer clean and MECE
Then bring the customization in the lower layers

2. How deep to go and how to avoid lists

What I usually suggest in coaching is to think in three layers:

First layer → very clean, MECE
Second layer → where you add analytical structure
Third layer → hypotheses / things you’d want to test (doesn’t need to be MECE)

Applied to a profitability case:

Layer 1:
Revenues | Costs
Layer 2 (example on revenues):
Price × Volume × Mix
And this is already where you start tailoring; e.g., “mix” could be product mix, customer segment, channel, geographies depending on the business.
Layer 3 (example under volume):
Here you move away from structure and into thinking:
- Has competition impacted volumes recently?
- Any shifts in customer demand?
- Any internal constraints (e.g., capacity, distribution)?

Hope it helps,
Feel free to DM me if you have further questions
Franco

Answer 2

Hi! To answer your questions:

1) For profitability cases, revenue and costs as first level drivers makes perfect sense. Usually, first level drivers need to capture high level MECE factors that need to be assessed in order to solve the problem

2) Within the sub-bucket, taking an example of airlines, you would want to break down revenues in a way that is specific to airlines. Just price x volume won't do.

Now, you could develop the formula from a demand or supply perspective.

Think about the bottleneck for airlines? It is the number of seats i.e. capacity so a supply-side breakdown of revenue is more relevant.

Therefore, something like: avg. no. of flights per day * avg. no. of seats per flight * avg. utilisation * avg. price * no. of active days in a year makes sense to give you a very quick idea. However, this only focuses on passenger revenue and makes certain simplistic assumptions that must be clearly called out and aligned on with the interviewer. In a real case, you will want to check with the interviewer about including cargo revenue and ancillary revenue for airlines (F&B, entertainment, etc.).

After you have broken down revenue and costs in a MECE way specific to airlines, your next step will be calling out hypothesis related to a few of your second level drivers. For e.g., perhaps avg. ticket price has declined due to commoditisation.

Good luck and feel free to reach out to help develop your structuring skillset!