Is this structure is MECE and focused?

Question

Hi

I'm preparing for my upcoming BCG interviews and would like your expert opinion on how to best structure the initial framework for this specific product launch case.

Case Prompt: A client has developed 3 new baby helmets and wants to know if their target of $1M in annual profit is reasonable, and if they should launch one or more products.

A simple, financially-focused approach would be to structure the analysis around two pillars: 1. Market Opportunity Assessment (to size the market) and 2. Profitability Analysis (to see if we can hit the $1M target).

However, my instinct tells me that a truly robust, partner-level answer needs to consider the practical realities of the launch. I felt that buckets like Operations, Implementation, and Stakeholders were also critical.

My core question for you is about scope: In a real BCG interview, would adding a third pillar for implementation and operational factors be seen as insightful and comprehensive, or would an interviewer consider it 'out of scope' for the initial framework?

Here was my rationale for wanting to include these factors:

Operations & Capabilities: My thinking was that we first need to understand our production capacity. The most "reasonable" plan might be to launch the helmet we can produce at the highest volume without needing new investment, which is a key operational consideration.
Implementation & Timeline: The client's goal is to hit the $1M profit target within the first year. I felt it was necessary to have a bucket to discuss the timeline and key steps required to make that happen.
Stakeholders: A medical device like this isn't sold in a vacuum. I believe that understanding how we would align with key stakeholders like doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies is critical to a successful launch and therefore should be part of the initial plan.

I am struggling with how to balance being MECE and strategically thorough without being told I am "boiling the ocean." I would greatly appreciate your advice on how you would structure the approach to this problem.

Thanks

simple version:
1. Strategic Rationale (Why should we do this?)

Market Opportunity: How attractive is the market we are targeting, and what is the competitive landscape?
Customer & Brand Impact: Does this move strengthen our relationship with customers and enhance our brand?
2. Financial Viability (Do the numbers work?)
- Profitability Projections: What are the expected revenues, costs, and ultimate profit from this initiative?
- Investment & Returns: What is the required upfront investment, and what is the expected return (e.g., ROI or Payback Period)?
3. Execution Feasibility (Can we actually do this?)
- Operational Capabilities: Do we have the necessary operational capabilities, technology, and talent to execute this successfully?
- Implementation Plan & Risks: What is the step-by-step plan to launch this initiative, and what are the key risks we must mitigate?

Answer 1

I would include feasibility considerations as that's an important consideration for launching one vs. more products.

The framework I would suggest is

1) Rev per year - under this bucket i would explore volume (total market size * penetration considering competitive landscape) * price for each product, cannibalisation risk

2) Cost per year - under this bucket i would explore fixed cost (e.g., manufacturing facility) and variable cost components (e.g., COGS, distribution cost) for each product

3) Internal capabilities - under this i would explore potential limiting factors such as sales & marketing capacity, distribution / logistics capacity, retailer / distributor capacity

My trick to appearing MECE without boiling the ocean is to aim for 3-5 (max) top buckets and fit your smaller ideas into these 3-5 overarching buckets.

In this example, your considerations around stakeholders & operational capacity can be captured in internal capabilities.

Answer 2

Hi there,

I would be happy to share my thoughts on your question:

First of all, and contrary to what other coaches have said, thinking in terms of factors or dimensions is not meaningful for almost all consulting firms except McKinsey, since they ask for an approach. And while you are right that the Yale case book's initial structure is not MECE, adding elements to it will not make it MECE either, let alone that BCG is not an operations consulting firm, unless you apply for an operations consultant role.
Moreover, instead, I would strongly advise you to focus on the core of the question. If the client asks whether they can reach their profitability target and how many helmets they would need to launch, the first activity should be a financial assessment. After that, you can consider how to complement this first activity to make the initial structure MECE.
Lastly, I would strongly advise you to consider working with an experienced coach like me on your structuring skills. I developed the "Case Structuring Program" to help exactly such candidates like you who struggle with case study structures.

You can find more on this topic here: How to succeed in the final interview round.

If you would like a more detailed discussion on how to best prepare for your upcoming BCG interviews, please don't hesitate to contact me directly.

Best,

Hagen

Answer 3

Great question.

Your instincts are directionally correct👍. On the step-by-step plan and timelines, I doubt you may have the time to build this out to sufficient detail, but could be great as a next steps in your recommendation should it be attractive and feasible for your client.

Why I agree:
A great structure is able to consider very strong factors that help you work towards a solution efficiently as you progress. Leaving out factors surrounding feasibility would be missing a good chunk of what makes the case unique for your client. What’s attractive is not always feasible depending on the context of the client.

Beware:
More often than not, you can be Mutually Exclusive in your structuring, never really Collectively Exhaustive in an interview setting because of time constraints. This is where you really need to be 80:20 in your thinking.

Questions that can help you sharpen your structuring are
1. Are there any overlaps in my structure?
2. Have I considered the most relevant factors?

Answer 4

Hey there :)

Your structure is strong and thoughtful, and yes: adding a third pillar like "Execution Feasibility" can definitely be seen as insightful in a BCG interview, if you keep it sharp and focused. It shows you're thinking ahead about implementation, which is very realistic and often appreciated by interviewers. The key is just to keep the third pillar tight, don’t overload it. One or two crisp checks (like feasibility of production and timeline to hit year-one targets) are perfect. Stakeholders can also be included, but only briefly unless there's a clear reason they'd change the go/no-go decision.

To answer your core question: no, it's not out of scope. As long as the first two pillars answer the "should we" and "can we make $1M," adding a short third one around "can we actually do this operationally and in time" shows maturity in thinking. Just avoid going too broad (don’t go too deep into stakeholder management unless it’s central to feasibility).

Let me know if you want to test the framework in a mock or tweak it further!

best,
Alessa :)

Answer 5

Hey,

Thanks for your question. I can see that you're thinking deeply about how to solve this problem.

My recommendation would be to focus on the overarching objective of the case - $1m profit in one year. The core determinants of this will likely be (i) financial viability, (ii) market size, growth, and trends (iii) competitor activity, (iv) customer analysis (incl. segmentation) - although up to you how you want to organize these.

To your operational points: I would briefly mention that you have considered these, but are deliberately excluding due to time constraints. It's unlikely that investigating these non-strategic areas will yield the key insight to the case.

If you have 30 ish mins to do a case, it's not practical to try and be 'collectively exhaustive' in your analysis. You can gesture towards operational/stakeholder other factors without needing to divert attention from the main part of the case. You can also mention them as next steps.

Answer 6

Let me be the contrarian here.

You are not solving any of the two problems, you are missing critical aspects, and you are adding "buckets" that are irrelevant to the problem you are trying to solve.

By the way, that sample structure has the same problem. Several critical aspects missing there (not market sizing, not sure what "alternatives" are nor what problem their solving... listing buckets is not a framework. Profit part is not elegant, you can multiply units per margin, no reason to structure things that way!

Let me explain what you are missing.

A1. Market sizing is ok

A2. But you are not evaluating your ability to WIN IN THE MARKET. You need to understand what are customers looking for, and how you compare vs. the competition. How you compare means you have to look at a lot of stuff - your product features, prices, channels, etc. And then you estimate a potential MARKET SHARE. You missed all of this.

A3. If you didn't do the previous, you have no idea how many units you can sell. Stating PROFITABILITY is meaning less. It's almost like repeating the question... your task is to figure out potential profitability, so just stating "profitability" is no answer at all. How are you going to define the price? How are you going to figure out the margins?

B1. But then you (not the "case answer") just COMPLETELY ignore that you have 3 products. YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT ON SALES (which segments can they target, how many additional sales, what's the potential cannibalization) and then the IMPACT ON COST (does having more products increase logistics, production, procurement, marketing costs???)

Unnecessary / badly designed buckets.
C1. Operations and capabilities... this is a clarifying question (i.e. "do they have a manufacturing limitation"), otherwise you are discussing topics OUT OF SCOPE.
C2. Investment and Returns... This was not asked for... They asked for 1M profit, not for payback not IRR
C3. Timeline... they gave you the timeline. You don't need a bucket to discuss the timeline again (yes, I do understand why you think you need one... but this isn't how this works). You need to consider the timeline within ALL THE OTHER BUCKETS. 1 year means that the market has to be there already, you won't be creating a new industry from scratch...
C4. This is not "stakeholders". Stakeholders is a broad term. And in reality what you are considering here is "prescribers". But those are only a subset of something a bit more large... "Channel", or "Go-to-Market strategy" which you completely missed in your structure and HAS to be somewhere.

Answer 7

Hi there!

I see you've received several great answers already.

One point I'd add - whenever you're unsure whether something is 'in' or 'out' of scope, clarify this with the interviewer.

The discussion itself already signals that you have the sort of thinking they look for in consultants. Plus, it's going to enable you to provide a targeted and relevant answer.

Best,
Cristian