Hello,
Got this McKinsey case from their website and can't figure out which type of case it fits into (from the article on this website: there's Market Sizing, Market Entry, Growth Strategy, Pricing, M&A, Valuation, Profitability).
If this case is its own type, what is it called, where can I practice it and what framework could be used?
Prompt: Our client is building a new city mandated by the government. Q1: Can the water utility infrastructure of this new city be a for-profit company and should our client own/invest in it?
How many other types of cases have I missed? Or is everything else just a combination of all the ones I mentioned above?
Back to overview
0
Thank you Benjamin.
What would you say is a better way of looking at types of cases rather than putting them in strict categories?
I. e. what's a better approach to preparation which would allow me to be more flexible? What building blocks should my focus be on?
Thanks for the reply Melike.
Let's say I do look at the points you mentioned and it turns out the target is not likely to be profitable for our client.
We do, however, know that the client is building the city itself. So perhaps the goal for the target water utility company is not profitability but rather investing in it so that it is beneficial for the city that the client is already involved with.
How would you approach something like this in an interview? Or is this the kind of thing that I have to clarify from the get-go and only then delve into my structure?
Thank you for the reply Cristian.
As I understood, by fundamentals you mean building blocks which you could later use to answer any case question.
Could you tell me a little more about what those building blocks are if you could present them as topics?
This would really help me adjust my current approach and angle.
Thank you very much
There might be a misunderstanding. I didn't mention anything about building blocks. I recommended structuring from first principles rather than using templates / pre-set building blocks.
I see. I think I didn't understand what you meant by first principles
Global
Unusual cases - identifying type of case
8
< 100
Be the first to answer!
Nobody has responded to this question yet.
Hi there,
This is exactly where it helps to keep an open mind and not try to force cases into predefined boxes. In real McKinsey interviews, cases are framed around a decision the client needs to make, not around labels like market entry or profitability. Trying to categorize too early can actually limit your thinking.
In this example, the core question is whether a specific infrastructure asset should be for profit and whether the client should own it. That naturally pulls in multiple angles such as demand, economics, regulation, risk, and strategic fit. Rather than asking “what type of case is this,” it’s better to ask “what would need to be true for this to be a good decision?” and build your structure from there.
Most cases are hybrids, and the categories you mentioned are just training tools. Strong candidates stay flexible, identify the real decision, and structure around the drivers that matter most rather than fitting the problem into a box.
Happy to help you think through how to approach cases like this if useful.
Best,
Evelina
Hello,
From a practical POV on the job, cases are typically categorized based on Industry and Function
- E.g. Industry: Banking, Consumer Goods, Public Sector etc.
- E.g. Function: Strategy, Operations, M&A etc.
The problem with thinking about cases and approaches in this way is that quite easily the number of permutations can balloon into a very large number (just look at each of the firm's websites and note how many capabilities and industries they serve).
So what then is the answer?
- Well, you could use several known types of 'frameworks' if the situation allows it. But sometimes it's exactly like you mentioned - either its not as intuitive or you cannot use a readily available 'framework'.
- Therefore the answer is to start with a question and build a logic that answers the question in a MECE way
- It's sounds simple or vague but this is really what we do on the job all the time in consulting, and the difficulty is precisely in thinking and crafting something that is specific rather than memorizing something
All good answers are logical - regardless of whether or not they conform to an existing known 'framework' or not.
All the best!
What would you say is a better way of looking at types of cases rather than putting them in strict categories?
I. e. what's a better approach to preparation which would allow me to be more flexible? What building blocks should my focus be on?
Hey there,
It’s a bit of a trap to think there’s a fixed set of case types you need to memorize. A more useful way to think about cases is whether they’re asking for a diagnosis, a decision, or a solution and then build a MECE structure around what’s needed to answer that question.
This case is a decision case, specifically an investment/ownership decision.
To answer that, your structure should focus on decision criteria such as:
- Business model viability (demand, pricing, regulation)
- Cost & CapEx profile
- Strategic fit with the client
- Regulatory / political environment
- Risk–return trade-off
McKinsey cases often go beyond standard buckets, especially in public sector or infrastructure contexts.
Happy to help you practice structuring more "unusual" case types.
Let's say I do look at the points you mentioned and it turns out the target is not likely to be profitable for our client.
We do, however, know that the client is building the city itself. So perhaps the goal for the target water utility company is not profitability but rather investing in it so that it is beneficial for the city that the client is already involved with.
How would you approach something like this in an interview? Or is this the kind of thing that I have to clarify from the get-go and only then delve into my structure?
I know this might come as a disappointment, but the idea of 'case types' is fundamentally wrong and limiting.
Yes, you can group some cases into categories. But you can't group all cases this way.
And by now, especially the MBBs, are starting to give more and more unusual cases because they want to see how you think. They're tired of candidates coming and presenting memorised frameworks for that particular 'case type'.
Which is why I also recommend and coach first principles structuring rather than templates. It's basically training you to do what you'll be doing on the job as well.
Best,
Cristian
As I understood, by fundamentals you mean building blocks which you could later use to answer any case question.
Could you tell me a little more about what those building blocks are if you could present them as topics?
This would really help me adjust my current approach and angle.
Thank you very much
Any kind of decision is a case, they’re not required to be in these buckets you mentioned because they may have a variety of cross functional implications
If you have two choices to make, then usually it’s a pro/con analysis, both quantitative and qualitative. The only way anyway for you to figure out the case is to know why one option might be better than the other
Hi there,
Unfortunately not all cases can be fit into a category. There are many "abnormal" cases that are given to candidates that don't fit into any typical case category. Hence, I suggest you don't hyper fixate on which category it belongs to, and instead focus on how you would structure your framework to solve the problem.
hey there :)
This is not a classic bucketed case and that is exactly the point, McKinsey often frames these as integrated strategy or investment feasibility cases. It combines elements of market sizing, profitability, regulation and investment decision making rather than fitting neatly into one label. The best way to tackle it is a decision driven framework starting from mandate and regulation, then economics and incentives, then ownership options and risks. You practice this best by doing public sector, infrastructure and investment style cases rather than hunting for a new category. In reality almost all cases are hybrids, the labels are just learning tools. Happy to dive deeper if useful.
best,
Alessa :)
That’s a great list of foundational case types, and I understand why you’re struggling to force this one into a single category. The frustration is common, because once you move past pure P&L diagnostics, the lines blur significantly.
The reality is that real consulting cases—especially those focused on large capital projects, infrastructure, or public sector clients—are rarely pure-play Market Entry or simple Growth Strategy. The prompt you cited is a classic Feasibility Study tied to a high-stakes investment decision. It resists a single framework label because it is designed to test your ability to structure a complex, multi-dimensional problem.
You are essentially running a nested analysis: First, is the regulatory environment conducive to a for-profit structure (Risk/Regulation)? Second, is the market attractive (Market Entry/Pricing/Demand)? Third, does it meet the client’s investment hurdle (Valuation/M&A mechanics)?
The key move here is to abandon the hunt for a specific framework name and instead create a bespoke, issue-driven structure. Start by isolating the three core questions (Profitability, Ownership, Risk) and create a MECE structure that addresses each layer. You're not missing other categories; you've just encountered a blend where synthesis and customization are the critical skills being tested.
All the best in your prep.
