How to structure a case if there is "multiple objectives" or "no clear objectives"?

Question

Hi forum, I would like to seek your input on this topci. For all the cases in case books, typically there is a clearly defined objective to achieve, such as increasing profit by X%, reducing cost by X%, etc.

But in an interview, the problem statement could be less structured, Which is quite practical as a lot of the time clients themselves don't really know what is the right question to solve.

Recently in an interview, I was asked whether the client should continue a JV / partnership with another company. The client expects the JV to support them to 1) grow their customer base 2) build digital capability 3) boost innovation.

I'm not sure how to structure such a case with multiple goals to achieve, and how to drill deep enough into the issue. If the goal is just one, such as “growing customer base”, it will be easier to build an “objective-driven” issue tree that directly links to this “success criteria”.

Any thoughts/suggestions on how to deal with such cases? Thank you!

Answer 1

Hi there,

Q: Any thoughts/suggestions on how to deal with such cases?

For the particular case you reported I would clarify what they mean by “building digital capabilities” and “boosting innovation”. If you cannot clarify properly the goal, it is not possible to structure an approach to reach that goal.

If they are unable to clarify what the previous points mean after you asked for that, you will have to present to the interviewer your best assumption on what they mean with that statement and that you will structure your approach based on that given there is no other information available. It is unusual however for an interviewer not to provide a clear goal if asked, as without that you cannot properly structure how to reach it.

Hope this helps,

Francesco

Answer 2

Hi there,

I love this question!

A great example of recognizing anything can happen in the interview.

In the case of no clear objective

For example they say “We don't have any goals. We trust your judgement”.

Normally, profit is a good default. But, ultimately, it's up to you to figure out what is a good metric (for example, one of my favorite cases says "We want to help the people of Madagascar. Here, it's up to you to recognize that profit is only one metric that matters.

In the case of multiple objectives

Often you will need to prioritize - figure out which is the most important.

Additionally, through the case, it might be that both get resolved together

In your example

The objective here is “Should we continue this partnership”

The secondary objective here is “Profits”

You have overcomplicated this immensely.

If the JV/Partnership can continue to be beneficial, they should stay. It might be that the case results in #1 holding true and #3 holding true, but #2 not holding true. In which case, your answer is likely that we continue the JV but either a) Find ways to improve it to meet #2 or b) Find another way to meet #2 (another partnership, internal investment etc.)

Make sense?

Answer 3

Hi there,

great question - thanks for bringing this up.

Francesco and Ian already gave good advise, I just wanted to add some additional thoughts…

The objective is clear - It's a Yes/No kind of question that you are expected to answer. So on top level, success of the case is to give a clear yes or no answer.
How to get to the Y/N is less clear - your job here is to see what feeds into that decision (which you did by establishing the points on customer base, digital capability, innovation. Once established, ensure you clarify on what constitutes these 3 (might be quantitative or qualitative) and then set up a structure that tests all 3. If all or majority hold true, then overall answer usually should will be yes.
Reposition your L2 branches as subquestions - a highly effective way for such Y/N questions is to reframe layer 2 of your tree as sub-questions. 1) Does JV grow customer base? 2) Does it help us build digital capability? 3) Does the JV boost innovation? Then on the layer below, build a supporting structure that tests exactly these 3 questions. If you have clear KPIs for each, great - use that and break them down further as needed. If no metrics = it's more qualitative, think about what you'd need to know to answer these questions and then collect the data to test accordingly.

Finally, these types of Y/N questions represent a quite common problem type you will see, especially with Final Round type of cases. Feel free to reach out to me or the other coaches, if you need help on honing your structuring skills.

Hope this helps.

Regards, Andi

Answer 4

Hi,

I think already some great points mentioned by the other coaches on how to structure. I'll just share some additional nuances because this is actually not uncommon on the job, especially once you reach Project Leader/Manager level and start being responsible for proposals as well as project scoping.

While clients often have an objective/question in their mind, often it is the task of us consultants to help sharpen the key questions/objectives or to suggest a better key question/objective. This is typically done before/at the start of the project, so everyone is aligned.

So yes, having to rely on your judgment and logic is realistic even on the job.

I think the nuance here is whether you are expected to have 1 ‘master’ framework that answers all the questions/objectives, or is it okay to have several ‘mini’ frameworks to answer the multiple questions/objectives.

On the job - the latter is typically acceptable if those are the only questions the client wants us to address. In fact I did a very similar case during my time in consulting where I helped to run the JV transaction process for a client who had 4 objectives.

In the case interview - you could arguably have a ‘master’ framework, but personally as an interviewer I would be fine if you had several ‘mini’ frameworks as long as they were MECE and well thought through.

All the best!

Answer 5

What an excellent question!

There are many ways to do it.

One that comes to mind now is to use these 3 criteria as a means of assessing the opportunity.

You could literally have these 3 pillars to evaluate the pluses and minuses across these different dimensions.

This could be a 'diagnostic' area that seeks to understand the current situation.

Then you could have another area which looks into what alternative moves they could make to get closer to those goals that don't have to do with that JV.

Best,
Cristian