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!

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!

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

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.