Hello, I am a bit lost between the two type of structures for cases.
Would you favor one for a specific type of case or even favor a specific structure type for all cases (root caused vs. facts) ? I am quite used to create tailored framework, but I often see cases being solved through a decision tree.
Do you know if it specific to some firms ?
Hi Anonymous,
as mentioned by Guennael, you can definitely use a hypothesis-driven approach and at the same time personalize your structure. The easiest thing to apply both the approaches is to keep a basic framework as the core and personalize it on the basis of the goal that you clarified at the beginning.
Best,
Francesco
I think there's a bit of sementics here: You need to tailor your approach to the problem, but you also need to be hypothesis driven to figure out where to go next and not boil the ocean. It is not one or the other
Hi,
A tailored framework in my view is the same as a hypothesis driven framework / tree. In all cases you will need a create framework and have a hypothesis.
Frameworks need to be tailored, otherwise the interviewer may assume that you do not understand the question or how to focus on what is most important to the question at hand. All the interviewers will know the standard frameworks and know when you are using one. If other candidates use a tailored approach, then they will be seen as better than someone who doesn't use individual thought.
Early on in a case, when you create your framework, you are unlikely to have all of the facts or know the root cause. The framework lets you identify the root cause and gather the facts.
These are my thoughts
Pls see my answer to a similar question here: https://www.preplounge.com/en/consulting-forum/from-analysis-to-strategic-recommendation-1944
