If I am not mistaken, the suggested solution of this case does not take up the information that only 1/4 of the grapes are transformed at the winery itself, and 3/4 sold. Also, the difference between red and white grapes is not taken up.
I think especially point 1 could lead a candidate into quite a different direction, ie decreasing or increasing this percentage, etc.
Hello Katharina,
I had a look and agree with you.
Red vs. white differentiation is only given at the beggining as "extra" info, but is not relevant. This is the case in many examples, in which not all information is usable and it´s one of the candidate´s task to make this judgement.
Regarding the 1/4 vs. 3/4, agree with you, is not taken into consideration, altough it should, since this indeed is relevant info for the problem.
I need to say tough that I like the case, it´s the typical 2nd round case -in McKinsey 2nd round I got something very similar-.
Hope it helps!
Cheers,
Clara
I would argue that the red vs. white discussion could be used in the business case section of the case from the perspective of reducing complexity in the vineyard operation.
I am not expert in wine production but I assume if the owner for example only wanted to sell red or white wine it would impact the amount of "production runs" needed, having multiple sets of different barrels, storage time/space, maybe even not needing to have multiple sets of equipment which is something the astute candidate could bring up.
However, as Clara says many cases will also include more information than is necessary to test your ability to weed through large amounts of information and prioritize.
Hope that helps!
Axel
Company case by