Back to overview

McKinsey Case: Digital & Vegan Restaurant Franchise: MECE Structure

Dear Community,

I have a question regarding the "McKinsey Case: Digital & Vegan Restaurant Franchise" from the library. I had to come up with a structure for this case in a Preplounge meeting yesterday. The structure I used was similar to the one in the solutions, however I divided it into internal and external like this: internal: Prices, Food & beverages provided, It system efficiency & maintenance, Marketing, Franchising (can we find good franchisees for our business ect.) and external: Customer (Disposable Income, Customer Confidence, Trends), Competition, Regulations (about wages and taxes). I got the feedback from the person I cased with that she is unsure whether this framework is MECE. She pointed out that f.ex. Price could be depended on the Market and Competition so she is unsure whether it is correct to put it into the internal bucket if the other topics are under external. Same for Marketing. Am I wrong? Should I have not used the internal/ external structure? In the solutions there are just 5 different points listed but I just wanted to separate it to make it easier for me to think about it instead of just randomly listing 5 points... How should I have structured it to make it actually MECE?

Thank you!

3
< 100
1
Be the first to answer!
Nobody has responded to this question yet.
Top answer
Profile picture of Tommaso
Tommaso
Coach
edited on Mar 31, 2026
Ex-McKinsey | MBA @ Berkeley Haas | No-nonsense coaching

Hi there!

Love the continuous improvement focus you are showing here! That's a key trait of a good consultant :)

Let me give you my perspective in a "structured" way:

1. Is your structure MECE? I would say it's OK, maybe 6/10. 

It's generally OK, but I don't love the fact that we have a lot of market-related elements in a few different buckets or sub-buckets (e.g., Franchising, Trends, Competition would all figure out under the "Market Analysis" section of a McKinsey deck). 

2. Is your structure improvable (outside the MECE point)? Mh, I definitely think so!
A few aspects that would have sounded sub-optimal to a McKinsey interviewer:

  • Internal and External are not categories that a McKinsey team would use to structure their analysis in real life. Int and Ext are very simple terms that might be used for specific problems/issues in the case, but are a bit too generic for the whole structure
    --> General approach: ask yourself: "Could my buckets and sub-buckets be the titles of a McKinsey client deck?". If not, you are not defining a clear direction for your analysis
  • You are not respecting the golden rule of 3-4 points for each category. People tend to lose focus after a few points (it's just hard to remember 5-6 items in a list!)
    --> General tip: your interviewer should be able to repeat, or at least remember, the framework you gave them
  • From your points, I am missing the fundamental questions that every McK consultant would try to understand before suggesting an investment: how profitable can this business be (in case of Corporate VC, before and after synergy), and what is the price? A business can score 10/10 on all the categories you mentioned, but be a terrible VC investment!
    --> General tip: to avoid boiling the ocean, ask yourself: "Is my structure answering the 2-3 most important questions?"
     

3. How would a McKinsey consultant handle this structure? My suggestion below (and my explanation in italics). I like this because it truly replicates the proven structure that I used for my VC clients at McKinsey

  1. Market
    1. Size and growth rate
    2. Typical profitability
    3. Competitive landscape
      --> Let me first understand whether this is a good market to invest in
  2. As-is target company (incl. profitability)
    1. Strategic (Product types, Customer/Price segments, Ops & Distribution)
    2. Financial (Revenue, Costs, Valuation)
      --> Let me take a look at the current situation of the company (as-is, or stand-alone in the case of Corporate VC)
  3. Expected operational improvements
    1. Revenue improvements
    2. Cost improvements
      --> Let me see if the investor can bring operational improvements or generate value
  4. Risk assessment
    1. Market-specific
    2. Target-specific
      --> Lastly, let me assess potential risks. Yes: market figures here again, but it's 100% expected

Hope this helps, and good luck on your journey!

Tom

UPDATE: OP clarified that the interviewer posed a specific question ("What do you think are key factors which would influence how VegDigi will perform economically in the next 5 years?") and was not asking for a full case structure (following the full prompt - "Our client has engaged us to help them to determine whether or not to make an investment into the VegDigi").
The answer above is intended as the case structure. See below in the comments for the answer to the shorter, qualitative question :)

Anonymous
2 hrs ago
Hi,

Thank you for your answer. However the specific question was: What do you think are key factors which would influence how VegDigi will perform economically in the next 5 years? Would you still use your suggested framework? I believe the question is more about VegDigi itself and not about the VC incl synergies ect?
Profile picture of Tommaso
Tommaso
Coach
2 hrs ago
Ex-McKinsey | MBA @ Berkeley Haas | No-nonsense coaching
Hey Anonymous,

Thanks for clarifying. I started from the prompt of the case you mentioned: "Our client has engaged us to help them to determine whether or not to make an investment into the VegDigi". The suggestion above is indeed the structure I would use for the whole case :)

Just FYI, the "What do you think are key factors which would influence how VegDigi will perform economically in the next 5 years?" should be treated as an additional qualitative question that comes after you have structured the whole case (and should not substitute the structure to answer the case prompt, which is your client's mandate!). Not sure if your peer interviewer followed this path or not, but this is what every MBB interviewer would do.

If we treat this as a *second, short and qualitative question*, I think your structure is still "OK, but improvable". Internal and External can be used in this context; however, the MECE point about market-related elements in a few different buckets or sub-buckets remains, and there are so many elements that you might be boiling the ocean. Personally, I would have chosen clear categories as
- Product and Price Mix: I want to understand what kind of product offering we expect to have in the future, whether the average ticket is sustainable in terms of demand, and whether our offering can sustain a profitable cost-structure
- Footprint and Customer Growth (or 'Scale'): this is a business that needs economies of scale to be profitable, so I want to see how many stores we can open, if we can increase customers per store, and how good the economics of the franchising expansion are
- Competition: I want to understand whether we have a sustained competitive advantage over our competitors and whether we can build barriers to entry

Since the question mentioned "key factors" and "economically", I chose focus over quantity. E.g., Is regulation important? Probably not a top-3 concern in this space (where you have to respect basic food safety rules, but you do not have to get approval from Antitrust to open a new shop or product line).
Profile picture of Ashwin
Ashwin
Coach
1 hr ago
Ex-Bain | Help 500+ aspirants secure MBB offers

Yes, the specific question changes things and your instinct is right.

This is about forecasting how VegDigi will perform, not diagnosing a current problem. So your buckets need to cover what drives the business over time.

Three forward-looking buckets work well here. 

  • Demand outlook: will the market and customer appetite grow, and how will competition change?
  • Revenue model: can they price well, scale the franchise, and keep good franchisees?
  • Cost sustainability: can the tech and operations scale without costs spiralling?

No need for VC or synergy analysis. The question is about VegDigi as a business.

The internal/external split still has the same problem. Most factors span both. Stick with buckets that each answer a distinct question about where the business is headed.

Anonymous A
60 min ago
Hi! Thank you for your answer, so that would mean the internal/external clustering is not MECE?
Profile picture of Cristian
14 min ago
Most awarded coach | Ex-McKinsey | Verifiable 88% offer rate (annual report) | First-principles cases + PEI storylining

It's impossible to tell for sure without actually hearing how you it delivered in the case. 

However, a few things to bear in mind

1 Consider answers in case books or the case library as one potential answer and not the only right answer. So when you look at the suggested answer, rather consider what you could take from it to make your own answer better. 

2 An internal/external structure is at this first level, perfectly MECE. However, I recommend against using this structure. Why? Because it's a template structure, overused in interviews and interviewers can easily recognise it. 

If you need some help with structuring or have any specific questions, don't hesitate to drop me a line.

Best,
Cristian