Structuring a case based on the objective of the client

Hi Patrick,

Keep going down this path and keep "figuring things out". I like how you're trying to break things down.

However, remember that you're just scratching the surface here. Be careful not to oversimplify and have 1 set approach/pathway. Cases have infinite possibilities. You have to train yourself in HOW to think and approach cases/problems.

Please please step back from such a narrow approach to case solving.

I'm going to take a step back and answer the question you're really asking: How do I use frameworks in a case?

If there's anything to remember in this process, is that cases don't exist just because. They have come about because of a real need to simulate the world you will be in when you are hopefully hired. As such, remember that they are a simplified version of what we do, and they test you in those areas.

As such, remember that a framework is a guide, not a mandate. In the real-world, we do not go into a client and say "right, we have a framework that says we need to look at x, y, and z and that's exactly what we're going to do". Rather, we come in with a view, a hypothesis, a plan of attack. The moment this view is created, it's wrong! Same with your framework. The point is that it gives us and you a starting point. We can say "right, part 1 of framework is around this. Let's dig around and see if it helps us get to the answer". If it does, great, we go further (but specific elements of it will certainly be wrong). If it doesn't, we move on.

So, in summary, learn your frameworks, use the ones you like, add/remove to them if the specific case calls for it, and always be prepared to be wrong. Focus rather on having a view, refering back to the initial view to see what is still there and where you need to dive into next to solve the problem.

Here's some reading to help: https://www.preplounge.com/en/articles/how-to-shift-your-mindset-to-ace-the-case

(editiert)

This is a classic one. You prepare with profitability and market entry cases and come up with a method can you can replicate. However, as you have identified, you would not know how to solve non-profit objective cases such as branding. The bad news is most MBB interview questions are not profitability based. The good news is you have time to practice.

Memorising structures can be helpful only to spend more of your structuring time adapting them to the problem. Relying on them without being able to structure a completely unseen problem is a recipe for disaster.

Some cases will require you to break down the revenue part to get to insight so definitely don't shy away from doing this if need be.

The main point about understanding the objective is to help tailor your structure. For example, does the client only care about profit or do you need to have another thing to solve for in your structure? On the other hand, if they only care about revenue, you can exclude costs. In other words, clarifications on objectives help you be as precise as possible when structuring. You have very little time to solve the case so being very precise will give you the best chance to do so 

The approach definitely makes sense. That is exactly what you should be doing. If you can solve a problem mathematically, you should do it.

Though I find it strange that you believe you can solve it if the objective is profit but not if the objective is a different quantifiable goal. Should not make any difference. I am under the impression maybe something is missing in your approach.

Regarding point 3): they will often ask you to perform market sizing, so the comment doesn't make sense. But it makes sense to consider that the consulting firm wants to hear as well about the specific analysis / factors to consider in your approach (so even if you solve it mathematically, you should include this in your approach).

Asking the objective is CRITICAL. If you don't know the objective, what the heck are you trying to solve? Yes, please do ask the objective and customize your approach to that objective.

Hi Patrick,

I would advise against that for a very simple reason: You're being presumptuous about the 1st question when you should do the exact opposite i.e., listen carefully to understand what exactly you're being asked, as it may or may not be closely related to the client objective (this is particularly true for McKinsey interviews).

Let me exemplify with a very simple example i.e., a simple prompt with 3 different alternatives for the 1st question:

Client objective: A mobile coffee business in Copenhagen (DK), operating year around, wants to grow 

Background information: The owner of the mobile shop operates a full-sized barista coffee machine in a stylish old Piaggo tricycle in the capital of Denmark, Copenhagen, where the worlds healthiest and fittest people live, thanks to their healthy lifestyle choices, including the daily commute to and from work on bicycle 

Q1 (alternative 1): What factors might control coffee consumption in the region in the next 10 years? → Related to coffee at large but not specifically the client's business objective

Q1 (alternative 2): What are some of the preferences that people might have that could be basis for growth levers? → Related to coffee and the client's business objective

Q1 (alternative 3): What do you think could be some of driving factors for consumer behavior in the cold and the warm season as it relates to buying food and drink products on the fly? → Not specifically related to coffee but partly related to client's business

As you can see, all those questions are very different and you have to have a tailored approach for each, which you have to come up with in the moment.

Hope this helps you understand as to why you can't go into the interview with a predetermined answer.

Best of luck!

Moritz

(editiert)