How to answer non standard real life case questions e.g. from McK?

Question

I have some tools at hand for thinking about non-standard questions. One of it is to build a structure along a value/process chain and separate an issue in individual subbranches.

Some questions are very open, however. I heard about one question recently which was something like:

“What is the impact on city X for hosting large sport event Y?”

Process structure does not work here.

Only thing that came to my mind is to find buckets based on stakeholders affected (e.g. city, people, firms, environment)

What is your input based on that?

Answer 1

Hi there,

Please be aware that these types of questions are the standard at McKinsey, not outliers.

At the core, McKinsey wants to see creative ideas communicated in a structured manner, the more exhaustive the better.

Your goal should be to come up with a tailored and creative answer that fits the question. The framework should - broadly speaking - follow these three characteristics:

Broad
Deep
Insightful

What you want is general top-level buckets, then go deeper into more detail and qualify your answer with practical examples and more details below.

You can take up to 6-8 minutes to present your structure, your qualification, and your hypotheses. This is due to the interviewer-led format that McK employs. The interviewer will only ask 'what else' if you

haven't gone broad or deep enough
did not explain your ideas well enough for them to stand out (again, you have time here)

The firm wants to see exhaustive and creative approaches to specific problems, which more often than not do not fit into the classic case interview frameworks that were en vogue 10 years ago...

Again, this only applies if everything you say

adds value to the problem analysis
is MECE
is well qualified
includes a detailed discussion of your hypotheses at the end

The difference in format and way of answering a question is the reason why I recommend preparing very differently for McK interviews vs. other consultancies. The first step is to get rid of the frameworks and learn how to deconstruct problems.

I believe your approach with stakeholders at the top is a very smart approach, as long as you then are able to create depth and come up with more ideas below for each type of stakeholder.

If you want to read more about the McKinsey case, have a look here: https://preplounge.com/mckinsey-interview

Cheers,

Florian

Answer 2

Hi there,

This is literally what coaching is for! Please reach out if you're interested in my course that teaches frameworking for any case type.

Consultants get paid millions to do just this: Think in an objective-driven, structured way to solve any problem in the world.

You've run into the problem all candidates face: You've thought all along that just memorizing frameworks will let you ace the case...WRONG!

You need to learn how to think. Frameworks are a good guide. They are not the end all be all.

When you learn a framework, you're meant to focus on the "ah ha! THIS is how they thought about THIS problem. They want to look at THIS because of THIS reason". Rather than getting the takeaway: "For x question, I can use y case"

_____________________________________________________

As a guide:

1) What matters? What does the bank care about? (Objective)

2) What are the areas we might want to look at? What might help us understand the landscape better? What might drive us towards an answer/resolution? (Hypothesis)

How do I use frameworks in a case?

If there's anything to remember in this process, is that cases don't exist just because. They have come about because of a real need to simulate the world you will be in when you are hopefully hired. As such, remember that they are a simplified version of what we do, and they test you in those areas.

As such, remember that a framework is a guide, not a mandate. In the real-world, we do not go into a client and say "right, we have a framework that says we need to look at x, y, and z and that's exactly what we're going to do". Rather, we come in with a view, a hypothesis, a plan of attack. The moment this view is created, it's wrong! Same with your framework. The point is that it gives us and you a starting point. We can say "right, part 1 of framework is around this. Let's dig around and see if it helps us get to the answer". If it does, great, we go further (but specific elements of it will certainly be wrong). If it doesn't, we move on.

So, in summary, learn your frameworks, use the ones you like, add/remove to them if the specific case calls for it, and always be prepared to be wrong. Focus rather on having a view, refering back to the initial view to see what is still there and where you need to dive into next to solve the problem.

Answer 3

For questions which don't fit ‘standard’ frameworks there are a few things that you can do:

1. Use a supply chain analysis

2. Go through the stakeholders as you did

3. Turn the question into a process question. (I've answered a similar question here https://www.preplounge.com/en/consulting-forum/case-question-what-are-the-drivers-for-the-accomodation-market-13974). So for this - for a city to host a sporting event they'd have to:

– Have the support of the population to do it → What is the political mandate?

– Build a sporting stadium → this would impact on jobs

– Arrange transport to and from the stadium → public transport

– Ensure there is accommodation and food → is the hospitality sector big enough and with the right supply chains

– Ensure that stadium is a safe place to be → security

Then bundle these elements into groups: I'd go for employment, infrastructure, political mandate

Hope that helps!

Answer 4

Hi there,

There is really no difference with other cases: you must customize your structure based on the case, particularly pay attention to details to understand the context of the case, that makes the difference. Understand the objective of the client and what is the root cause. Also you need to prioritize on what to focus on, what lever would make the difference. This is the most common fail of the candidates not understanding the case to be solved in 30 min and not all levers are relevant.

Good luck!

Lucie

Was this answer helpful?

Answer 5

For these types of cases, either you have a mental map you can adjust to the case (e.g. the process chain you were mentioning) or you have to think about how to break down the problem in a simple way.

In this case, revenues/benefits and costs/negative impacts:

revenues from holding event (direct & indirect, short term and long term)
costs of holding event (direct - financial; indirect - environment, safety)

Answer 6

First, it is important to clarify the scope. Is the objective to assess the impact on the city or also on people/firms operating in the city?

Once you get this, integrating what Pedro wrote (I totally agree!) and re-iterating Lucie's point, my suggestion is to:

Split between financial and non-financial impact
For each, try to figure out how people, city gov, companies, environment) are impacted

Answer 7

The main difference really is the risk at stake. Entrepreneurial Drive is more about having initiative and driving th... (read entire answer)

The main difference really is the risk at stake. Entrepreneurial Drive is more about having initiative and driving things forward, but Courageous Change is about making the hard... (read entire answer)