Cookie and Privacy Settings

This website uses cookies to enable essential functions like the user login and sessions. We also use cookies and third-party tools to improve your surfing experience on preplounge.com. You can choose to activate only essential cookies or all cookies. You can always change your preference in the cookie and privacy settings. This link can also be found in the footer of the site. If you need more information, please visit our privacy policy.

Data processing in the USA: By clicking on "I accept", you also consent, in accordance with article 49 paragraph 1 sentence 1 lit. GDPR, to your data being processed in the USA (by Google LLC, Facebook Inc., LinkedIn Inc., Stripe, Paypal).

Manage settings individually I accept
expert
Expert with best answer

Jessica

0 Meetings

4 Q&A Upvotes

USD 149 / Coaching

1

Comments about the suggested solution

Hi all,

Just a few thoughts on the solution of this case :) :

Q1 : It seems to me that the suggested answer to question 1 is not fully MECE. What about a structure really structured around : current car owners VS non car owners, among each category identifying non "e-vehicle interested" and "e-vehicle interested", with then dominant interest drivers : price, conveniance, eco-friendliness

Conclusion : Here there is not really any clear cut recommandation, but a synthesis of different options. Isn't it more adviseable to pick a strategy and back it up with 2/3 specific arguments that have been coming across the case, even if the overall analysis has not been fully performed in the case ?

What do you think ?

Hi all,

Just a few thoughts on the solution of this case :) :

Q1 : It seems to me that the suggested answer to question 1 is not fully MECE. What about a structure really structured around : current car owners VS non car owners, among each category identifying non "e-vehicle interested" and "e-vehicle interested", with then dominant interest drivers : price, conveniance, eco-friendliness

Conclusion : Here there is not really any clear cut recommandation, but a synthesis of different options. Isn't it more adviseable to pick a strategy and back it up with 2/3 specific arguments that have been coming across the case, even if the overall analysis has not been fully performed in the case ?

What do you think ?

1 answer

  • Upvotes
  • Date ascending
  • Date descending
Best Answer
Book a coaching with Jessica

0 Meetings

4 Q&A Upvotes

USD 149 / Coaching

Dear Marie-Eve,

Some input on my side on the two points you mentioned

Q1: The case question is very open ended, so I think all the categories suggested in the solution are potential ways to segment the market. However, should I have to estimate the potential market size for our company I would also consider car owners vs. non car-owners, then, as you suggested, looking into each of the two categories and for example estimate:

- for car owners how many of them are in the income range that can afford our electric car, then how many of these would be willing to switch to electric, how many of these are interested in our type of car (i.e. is our car an electric SUV or Luxory or something else). Then based on the average life span of a car in the US you can estimate how many of current car owners that are potentially interested in our car would buy a new car in a year.

- for the non-owner you would make a similar reasoning probably taking into considerations that some of theme would never buy a car (too old/too young, not interested, not having a license, etc)

Conclusion: here some observations

1) In general, you do need to pick one path to solve a case. However, at the beginning of the case you should clearly specify why you decid to pick a specific path. For example (may not really apply to the specific case, but just to give an idea od the type of sentences you should use :-) ): " I think that in order to estimate the market for e-vehicles in the upcoming X years I should consider both current car owners and non-car owners, but for the sake of this case I think it is safe enough to only consider car owners because..."

2) When it comes to drawing final strategic conclusions at the end of the case you can say that based on the analysis you have just performed you would advise the company to undertake a certain action. However, you should also mention that there is a number of other factors that weren't analyzed during the resolution of the case, but that should be taken into consideration in a real project work and that could possibly impact the strategic advise you give to the client.

The interviewer wants to see if you are able to think beyond the sometimes straightforward solution of the case and take into considerations the complexities that arise during real projects. But do not be stuck in complexities! It is good to mention them, but still you need to pick a path to solve the case.

Hope this answers your question!

Dear Marie-Eve,

Some input on my side on the two points you mentioned

Q1: The case question is very open ended, so I think all the categories suggested in the solution are potential ways to segment the market. However, should I have to estimate the potential market size for our company I would also consider car owners vs. non car-owners, then, as you suggested, looking into each of the two categories and for example estimate:

- for car owners how many of them are in the income range that can afford our electric car, then how many of these would be willing to switch to electric, how many of these are interested in our type of car (i.e. is our car an electric SUV or Luxory or something else). Then based on the average life span of a car in the US you can estimate how many of current car owners that are potentially interested in our car would buy a new car in a year.

- for the non-owner you would make a similar reasoning probably taking into considerations that some of theme would never buy a car (too old/too young, not interested, not having a license, etc)

Conclusion: here some observations

1) In general, you do need to pick one path to solve a case. However, at the beginning of the case you should clearly specify why you decid to pick a specific path. For example (may not really apply to the specific case, but just to give an idea od the type of sentences you should use :-) ): " I think that in order to estimate the market for e-vehicles in the upcoming X years I should consider both current car owners and non-car owners, but for the sake of this case I think it is safe enough to only consider car owners because..."

2) When it comes to drawing final strategic conclusions at the end of the case you can say that based on the analysis you have just performed you would advise the company to undertake a certain action. However, you should also mention that there is a number of other factors that weren't analyzed during the resolution of the case, but that should be taken into consideration in a real project work and that could possibly impact the strategic advise you give to the client.

The interviewer wants to see if you are able to think beyond the sometimes straightforward solution of the case and take into considerations the complexities that arise during real projects. But do not be stuck in complexities! It is good to mention them, but still you need to pick a path to solve the case.

Hope this answers your question!

(edited)

Thank you very much, this is very helpful ! — Marie on Mar 06, 2020

Regarding the final conclusion, my point was that the final conclusion suggested here is " There are different ways to start the mass-production" with pros and cons of each solution. I was wondering if it is not better to advice the client on one specific solution, saying e.g. "after considering the 4 different solutions W, X, Y, Z for mass production, we advice our client to opt for solution X because : // pros of X, // significant cons for W,Y and Z". Any thoughts on that? :) — Marie on Mar 08, 2020

Yep. So, if you look at the Short Solution of the case it does recommend one solution (i.e. producing by itself in the US) and in the conclusion you have some arguments supporting the recommendation. However, you should also mention other possibilities (i.e. the ones that, based on existing evidence, you would not recommend, but that still exist) — Jessica on Mar 09, 2020

Similar questions

No similar questions available