Two questions regarding case structure

Question

Hi,

I do have three questions regarding case structuring:

1. There is tons of different opinions out there, but what is best for a McKinsey interview:

Option a: Naming the first layer of buckets, then diving into bucket one, again naming all sub buckets, and then going through them 1 by 1, or
Option B: Naming the first layer of buckets, then not naming all sub buckets, but start with the first one, give an explanation, and then continue to the second one, give an explanation, and so on?

→ I always thought Option a is clearly better, but heard some other opinions.

2. When I go through the first layer of buckets, do I already need to state what my purpose is with each bucket? Or where is it best to do this?

3. Lastly, a specific framework question: I am struggling to come up with a smooth framework for “either or” investment decisions, market entry decisions etc.

Specifically, when I have to write down factors to investigate and base the decision on, and lets imagine one bucket is financials, how do I smoothly bring this across? I tend to now say “I would for both options like to do a profitability analysis”, and then compare. But as we usually go quite deep in the structure in explanations, it often becomes a mess, seems like I am repeating a lot. Would it maybe make most sense to address the delta more? Could you give me an example on how to best communicate it?

Answer 1

Dear candidate,

great that you are focused on case structuring, it is a bit up to personal style, I would recommend first mentioning your buckets and phrasing them directly so that the value of them is clear (sometimes that is possible), then explain the content of each bucket, which could be a substructure with then bullet points (questions, relevant elements, hypotheses) or which could only be a second layer without a substructure (if you find the substructuring too difficult. All things equal, it is great to have 3 levels in a framework rather than 2, but I would say most important is that it is a good framework. So meaning if you can deliver a great one with 2 levels than that is better than delivering a poor one with 3 levels, because you were rushed.

Best regards

Answer 2

Hi there,

First, here's some case reading for you: https://www.preplounge.com/en/articles/how-to-shift-your-mindset-to-ace-the-case

1. There is tons of different opinions out there, but what is best for a McKinsey interview.

I am a strong proponent for option A (signposting first and then diving into the buckets). Make sure that, when you signpost, you are giving a sentence or two that makes the purpose/goal of that bucket clear (i.e. don't just say “Market” and “Product”)

2. When I go through the first layer of buckets, do I already need to state what my purpose is with each bucket? Or where is it best to do this?
Yes! Please say the purpose/goal. I.e. why that bucket exists.

3. Lastly, a specific framework question: I am struggling to come up with a smooth framework for “either or” investment decisions, market entry decisions etc.

There isn't A smooth framework for either. Or for growth, profitability, pricing, for that matter.

Each prompt is different and requires a different framework.

That said, investment is generally viewed as “cost benefit” and market entry is generally viewed as “is the market good, will we do well in it, and can we pull it off”. But, it's much more complicated that this!

Answer 3

Hi there,

For questions 1 and 2, I would recommend laying out your entire structure up front (option a), to demonstrate that you have constructed a clear approach to tackle the case from the beginning. Not only does this make you look more organised, but also this approach shadows a real case more closely: when we present to clients, we communicate the whole framework/deck's table of contents up front.

For question 3, I love using an impact/feasibility matrix/graph when evaluating market entry options: I even used it just this week for my own start-up. In this framework, you divide all your relevant criteria into two buckets: impact (how attractive the market is: price level, GDP/capita, population size, etc.) and feasibility (how easy the market is to enter: infrastructure level, corruption level, competitive landscape, etc.) Naturally, these criteria will be specific to your case and industry. You then place your candidate investments/market along the two axes and prioritise them.

Hope this helps and good luck!

Answer 4

Hello!

This is a good question that troubles many people.

The truth is that, as all comms styles, they are just that: styles. You will have very good and smart people who crack cases and get interviews with both, since they make them theirs and deliver correctly.

This said, personally I think the first is easier for a candidate to practice and deliver - but again, someone can come and contradict me here.

Hope it helps!

Cheers,

Clara

Answer 5

Option A as you have mentioned is called the top down approach. I highly recommend sticking to this when expanding on your structure as this is what most consultants use when communicating their own issue tree.

Answer 6

Hi there, and thanks for asking, Indeed, setting up the framework for a profitability case can be a bit confusing, ho... (read entire answer)

Hi there, and thanks for asking, Indeed, setting up the framework for a profitability case can be a bit confusing, however, I would advise you not to think of “THE” framework wh... (read entire answer)