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.
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.
Considering compliance and safety-related costs can be helpful in some cases when structuring an answer, esp. in regulatory heavy areas such as mining / infrastructure projects or pharmaceutical drug launches. In such situations, these factors can be included as part of the issue tree, as they may materially impact costs, feasibility, or risk.
The depth of analysis can be further calibrated based on soft interviewer feedback. A possible approach is to briefly flag compliance and safety considerations and then check alignment, for example by asking: “Is this a priority area for the client that they would like us to explore further?”
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 :)
Chloe,
A few points to keep in mind
1. You are not tested for knowledge on generalist interviews, but for skills. Meaning, they don't expect you to have in-depth knowledge of a particular industry.
2. If you do happen to know a lot about the industry from which the case interview is, then take advantage of that and share that knowledge.
3. How deep you should go? As deep as you can while ensuring that the content you are providing is still relevant and that the case interview feels more like a conversation you'd be having with a client, not a data download.
Best,
Cristian
Hi there,
I’m not a native English speaker either, so I completely relate to what you’re describing. You’re also absolutely right in your observation — structured cost analysis and clear assumptions are core consulting skills.
In case interviews, though, you don’t need to go extremely deep into compliance or safety costs unless they are clearly central to the problem. What interviewers look for is whether you:
- Acknowledge them explicitly as a cost driver or risk
- Structure them clearly (e.g. fixed vs variable, upfront vs ongoing, compliance vs non-compliance risk)
- Explain the logic behind your assumptions, even if the numbers are rough
It’s usually enough to say something like: “In regulated industries, I’d expect additional compliance and safety-related costs, such as certifications, inspections, or fireproofing. I’d want to size these at a high level and check whether they materially change profitability.”
That shows awareness and judgment. If the interviewer wants more depth, they’ll push you there. Trying to over-engineer compliance costs without a prompt can actually hurt, because cases are about prioritization, not completeness.
Happy to help you prep – feel free to reach out!
Best,
Evelina
Hi Chloe!
This is an excellent question, and it points to one of the most common reasons candidates fail MBB interviews.
Every year, thousands of candidates walk out thinking
“I wasn’t knowledgeable enough about the industry”
or
“I should have known more about regulation or compliance.”
That conclusion is almost always wrong.
What no casebook told them: MBB interviews are not testing whether you know enough to solve the problem.
They are testing whether you can solve a problem precisely because you do NOT know the topic.
This is the part most candidates completely miss.
If interviews rewarded domain knowledge, firms would just hire industry experts. They don’t. They hire generalists who can walk into a situation they have never seen before and still bring clarity.
That is why “assuming” things is so dangerous.
When a candidate says,
“I would assume compliance costs are around 10–15%,”
they believe they are demonstrating business judgment.
What the interviewer actually sees is the opposite:
– You felt uncomfortable not knowing
– You filled the gap with a guess
– You moved forward without alignment
In consulting, that is not confidence. That is risk.
The correct move is not to know or assume.
The correct move is to structure ambiguity and align before acting.
In cases involving infrastructure, construction, healthcare, or other regulated industries, you absolutely should recognize that compliance and safety costs may matter. That recognition alone already shows maturity. But then you must stop and clarify their role.
A strong candidate does not say:
“I’ll assume these costs are fixed and move on.”
A strong candidate says:
“Given the industry, regulatory and safety costs could be material. Before going deeper, I’d like to clarify whether these are fixed constraints or whether the client sees room to influence them.”
That single clarification is far more impressive than any percentage estimate.
Why?
Because it proves you understand what the interview is really about.
You are not being tested on whether you know the answer.
You are being tested on whether you know how to proceed when you don’t.
So to answer your question directly:
You should not go deep into compliance or safety costs by default.
You should go exactly as deep as relevance and alignment justify.
In practice, that means:
– Flagging them when they are plausibly material
– Avoiding unsupported assumptions
– Clarifying whether they are constraints or levers
– Letting the interviewer pull you into depth if needed
Candidates fail not because they lack knowledge.
They fail because they misunderstand the game.
MBB interviews reward clarity over cleverness, alignment over guessing, and judgment over expertise. Once you internalize that, questions like “how deep should I go” become much easier to answer.
Hope this helps! :)
Sidi
____________________
Dr. Sidi S. Koné
In case interviews, structure and logic matter much more than the exact technical assumptions. If you know the key cost drivers or compliance items for an industry, it’s great to be specific and call them out clearly.
If you don’t know the exact assumptions, that’s completely fine. What matters is that you:
- Acknowledge that those costs exist,
- Place them in the right bucket (e.g., fixed vs. variable, one-off vs. ongoing),
- And explicitly state any assumptions you’re making.
It’s often a good move to say something like: “I don’t have the exact figures, but I’d expect compliance and safety costs to be material here. Unless you want me to assume otherwise, I’ll treat them as a fixed cost driver and sanity-check their impact.”
Interviewers are testing whether you can structure uncertainty, not whether you can recall regulation details. Specifics can usually be looked up later
Good luck with your preparation!
