Hello!

Funny enaugh, one of the 2 "little business cases" that I had to solve with a McK Senior Partner in my final round was similar to this.

You should enrich it with details, in each node of the tree.

For instance:

"Let´s start with the income branch, in this case, with the purpose of increasing them. We have 3 sub-levers here: salary, side job and dividends. Taking the 1st one, salary, I can think of 2 ideas to increase it in the short term, such as X and Y"

Hope it helps!

Best,

Clara

Hi Alex,

Good start but not quite fleshed out enough. I approve of the structure (assuming you would fill it out more). What's missing is the hypothesis/logic.

Hypothesis doesn't necessarily mean "My hypothesis is that I can increase savings by spending less on eating out".

What it means is "I believe I can increase my savings by looking at quick ways to increase earnings AND looking at where I can reduce my spend. To reduce my spend, I need to identify what spend it table stakes i.e. has to happen for me to continue living at an acceptable level. Then, whatever isn't table stakes, I would look to identify if/how/to what extent I can reduce each of these"

Hi Alex,

ABS - always be structured. Even if it might look straight-forward and obvious in the first place - always have a structured approach. And communicate it well - having a structured approach doesn't help with an unstructured communication.

Hypothesis at the beginning of the case? Fundamentally wrong idea anyway, you can find a couple of recent posts on that in this forum.

Hope that helps - if so, please be so kind and give it a thumbs-up with the green upvote button below!

Robert