I am not a native English speaker, but I am preparing for consulting cases and learning a lot from this forum. One thing I notice in many case interviews is how important structured cost analysis and assumptions are. Consultants are expected to break problems into clear parts and justify numbers logically. When analyzing a case, we usually look at risk, compliance, cost drivers, and long-term impact. Especially in industries like construction or infrastructure, safety regulations and compliance costs can strongly affect profitability and recommendations. In my work exposure, I saw how expert fireproofing estimating services are used to calculate accurate costs related to safety standards and regulations before making decisions. This kind of estimation helps decision-makers avoid risk and budget surprises, which is very similar to what consultants do in real projects. I would like to ask: in case interviews, how deep should we go into compliance and safety-related costs when structuring our answers? Thank you for your guidance.
Hi,
An interesting question. The answer is - you should go into it in-so-far as it is relevant and logical to investigate.
This is the mantra for all consulting interview prep (and also for the job). If it is within the scope of the question / topic, sure, include it. But if it does not make sense, then no point talking about it.
It is easier said than done, but the hardest part about consulting interviews is the ability to think on the spot in a logical and structured way. This means that there can never really be one 'single' answer on "how deep to go into [topic x]", because it will always depend :)
That is a very insightful observation, and you’ve hit on one of the key differences between a good candidate and a truly great one. You are absolutely correct that in infrastructure, heavy industry, or healthcare cases, compliance and safety costs are not merely externalities—they are core components of the P&L structure and often the primary risk driver.
Here is the reality of the case interview environment: you are not expected to be a subject matter expert on specific regulations or technical estimation methodologies. The interviewer is testing your ability to structure the problem and demonstrate awareness of material cost drivers. If you are doing a cost reduction case for a construction firm, simply having a clear, MECE-compliant bucket labeled "Regulatory, Compliance, and Safety Overhead" is exactly what they want to see. You earn points for recognizing the driver, not for estimating its specific percentage or citing the relevant federal law.
The strategic pivot is to use a high-level logical assumption and move on quickly. After structuring your framework, you might say, "Given that this is an infrastructure project, I will assume the regulatory and compliance costs are fixed and non-negotiable, representing approximately 10-15% of the total operating budget." This shows awareness and allows you to prioritize the variable costs (where the real solution space usually lies). If the interviewer wants you to deep-dive into a specific compliance cost, they will explicitly prompt you to do so. Until then, stay high-level and structured.
All the best with your preparation.
