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

Francesco

100% Recommendation Rate

2,965 Meetings

7,140 Q&A Upvotes

USD 379 / Coaching

1

Critique of this Case Interview Structure

I hear people saying that their interview feedback was that they were too structured. I came across the video below of a sample case and I figured this may be an example of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16m-yflh-Ho

Just looking at the first 6 minutes where she lays out her structure, is her approach considered too structured? Also is she considered to be boiling the ocean?

I'm struggling with what would be deemed a good upfront structure for the MBBs. If I were given this type of case, after clarifying facts, my approach to the structure would be to say the following:

1. Introduce the 3 buckets I want to look at (Organic, Inorganic, Partnerships/JVs);

2. A brief explanation of why I have chosen those buckets and a very general explanation of what I will be asking in, and what I expect to achieve by exploring, each bucket. I would only do this at a very high level without listing out all the possible options (just a few examples to give the interview a ballpark of where I am looking) within each bucket;

3. That while we may do a cost and risk analysis as we explore the alternatives within each bucket, I will present a more complete cost and risk analysis once we have concluded the best option for the client;

4. Clarify with the interviewer that he/she is happy with that approach.

I expect the explanation of my framework to take less than a minute and will give me freedom to identify and explore specific options as the case evolves while allowing me to generate ideas as I go. Would this be considered a reasonable introduction to the framework for an MBB or would my approach be deemed too light on structure? Or are the MBBs really expecting the level of detail the lady in the video goes into? 5 minutes vs 1 minute is a big difference.

Many thanks

I hear people saying that their interview feedback was that they were too structured. I came across the video below of a sample case and I figured this may be an example of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16m-yflh-Ho

Just looking at the first 6 minutes where she lays out her structure, is her approach considered too structured? Also is she considered to be boiling the ocean?

I'm struggling with what would be deemed a good upfront structure for the MBBs. If I were given this type of case, after clarifying facts, my approach to the structure would be to say the following:

1. Introduce the 3 buckets I want to look at (Organic, Inorganic, Partnerships/JVs);

2. A brief explanation of why I have chosen those buckets and a very general explanation of what I will be asking in, and what I expect to achieve by exploring, each bucket. I would only do this at a very high level without listing out all the possible options (just a few examples to give the interview a ballpark of where I am looking) within each bucket;

3. That while we may do a cost and risk analysis as we explore the alternatives within each bucket, I will present a more complete cost and risk analysis once we have concluded the best option for the client;

4. Clarify with the interviewer that he/she is happy with that approach.

I expect the explanation of my framework to take less than a minute and will give me freedom to identify and explore specific options as the case evolves while allowing me to generate ideas as I go. Would this be considered a reasonable introduction to the framework for an MBB or would my approach be deemed too light on structure? Or are the MBBs really expecting the level of detail the lady in the video goes into? 5 minutes vs 1 minute is a big difference.

Many thanks

(edited)

1 answer

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

100% Recommendation Rate

2,965 Meetings

7,140 Q&A Upvotes

USD 379 / Coaching

Hi Anonymous,

I personally don’t think she was too structured; rather:

  1. Her communication is not optimal; she could have mentioned first all the macro areas and then go deeper in details, that would have given an immediate idea to the interviewer of her structure.
  2. Industry should be put at the beginning in a grow strategy case, as could give direction on the actual strategy (out of those she mentioned as organic and inorganic) where to concentrate, checking the segments with the highest potential.
  3. She actually sounded unstructured when she mentioned competitors, size and value chain in the industry. It was not clear why she mentioned size and competitors - those points could makes sense, but missed a rational. Also, she mentioned the hypothesis to sell components as a reason to look at value chain; since that could be considered a way to sell new product varieties, the structure would not be MECE, as she mentioned new product as well in the organic bucket at the beginning.
  4. Current revenues could be clarified at the beginning of the case as clarifying questions – sounds strange to have such quantification in the middle of the case.
  5. Risks could have been shorter – no need to detail in such length, as risks most of the time depends on the solution chosen.
  6. Overall, due to point 3, 4 and 5, she went too long (3 min and 30 seconds); she could have explained such structure cutting unnecessary points in less than 2 minutes

Your structure, on the other hand, sounds a bit too simple and misses the industry bucket, which may be relevant to understand where to focus the growth efforts. Assuming you have already clarified the goal, the structure I would recommend for this case would be the following:

  1. Analyse the industry. Check (i) which segments have the highest potential (ii) Consider innovation not yet present in the market but potentially appearing in the time period our client desires to grow
  2. Consider growth strategies. I would suggest to focus on
    1. Current products, analysing ways to increase (i) Price or (ii) Volume
    2. New products (also achievable via M&A or JV), focusing on (i) Product variety and (ii) Diversification
  3. Consider feasibilities for the option identified. Do we have (i) Enough money and (ii) Enough capabilities
  4. Consider risks

That would include all the critical elements she also mentioned, but could be delivered in less than two minutes. Of course, the structure could then be expanded further once tocuhed a specific area during the interview.

Hope this helps,

Francesco

Hi Anonymous,

I personally don’t think she was too structured; rather:

  1. Her communication is not optimal; she could have mentioned first all the macro areas and then go deeper in details, that would have given an immediate idea to the interviewer of her structure.
  2. Industry should be put at the beginning in a grow strategy case, as could give direction on the actual strategy (out of those she mentioned as organic and inorganic) where to concentrate, checking the segments with the highest potential.
  3. She actually sounded unstructured when she mentioned competitors, size and value chain in the industry. It was not clear why she mentioned size and competitors - those points could makes sense, but missed a rational. Also, she mentioned the hypothesis to sell components as a reason to look at value chain; since that could be considered a way to sell new product varieties, the structure would not be MECE, as she mentioned new product as well in the organic bucket at the beginning.
  4. Current revenues could be clarified at the beginning of the case as clarifying questions – sounds strange to have such quantification in the middle of the case.
  5. Risks could have been shorter – no need to detail in such length, as risks most of the time depends on the solution chosen.
  6. Overall, due to point 3, 4 and 5, she went too long (3 min and 30 seconds); she could have explained such structure cutting unnecessary points in less than 2 minutes

Your structure, on the other hand, sounds a bit too simple and misses the industry bucket, which may be relevant to understand where to focus the growth efforts. Assuming you have already clarified the goal, the structure I would recommend for this case would be the following:

  1. Analyse the industry. Check (i) which segments have the highest potential (ii) Consider innovation not yet present in the market but potentially appearing in the time period our client desires to grow
  2. Consider growth strategies. I would suggest to focus on
    1. Current products, analysing ways to increase (i) Price or (ii) Volume
    2. New products (also achievable via M&A or JV), focusing on (i) Product variety and (ii) Diversification
  3. Consider feasibilities for the option identified. Do we have (i) Enough money and (ii) Enough capabilities
  4. Consider risks

That would include all the critical elements she also mentioned, but could be delivered in less than two minutes. Of course, the structure could then be expanded further once tocuhed a specific area during the interview.

Hope this helps,

Francesco

Related BootCamp article(s)

Getting Up to Speed

In order to repeatedly demonstrate prerequisite skills under the pressure of a real case interview, you need to learn the basics and practice cases.

1 Q&A

Related case(s)

MBB Final Round Case - Smart Education

Solved 7.1k times
MBB Final Round Case - Smart Education Our client is SmartBridge, a nonprofit educational institution offering face-to-face tutoring services. The client operates in the US. The mission of SmartBridge is to help as many students as possible to complete studies and prevent that they drop from the school system, in particular in disadvantaged areas. The client is considering starting operations for its services in the Chicago area. They hired us to understand if that makes sense. Due to the nonprofit regulation, SmartBridge should operate on its own in the market, without any partnership. How would you help our client?
4.6 5 298
| Rating: (4.6 / 5.0)

Our client is SmartBridge, a nonprofit educational institution offering face-to-face tutoring services. The client operates in the US. The mission of SmartBridge is to help as many students as possible to complete studies and prevent that they drop from the school system, in particular in disadvant ... Open whole case

Espresso, Whatelse?

Solved 5.8k times
Espresso, Whatelse? Espresso Whatelse is an Italian company that produces coffee and espresso machines since 1908. It is the Italian market leader and has a strong presence overall in Europe. In 2019, Espresso Whatelse has increased its revenues but it has seen declining profit margin. Your client wants to understand the root causes of this 2019 trend and how to increase its profit margin again.  
4.6 5 310
| Rating: (4.6 / 5.0)

Espresso Whatelse is an Italian company that produces coffee and espresso machines since 1908. It is the Italian market leader and has a strong presence overall in Europe. In 2019, Espresso Whatelse has increased its revenues but it has seen declining profit margin. Your client wants to understand ... Open whole case

Chinese Chess - Airline Business During COVID-19

Solved 1.4k times
Chinese Chess - Airline Business During COVID-19 Sky China, a government-backed Chinese airline, has recently seen profits plummet due to COVID-19. Profits are down 80% in the months of February and March, but are showing early signs of a rebound in April.  They've brought you in to first investigate what can be done immediatedly to prevent hemorrhaging cash and surive in the short-term. They are also looking to see how the current situation can be viewed as an opportunity, and what can be done to prepare for the future. 
4.4 5 37
| Rating: (4.4 / 5.0)

Sky China, a government-backed Chinese airline, has recently seen profits plummet due to COVID-19. Profits are down 80% in the months of February and March, but are showing early signs of a rebound in April. They've brought you in to first investigate what can be done immediatedly to prevent hemor ... Open whole case

McKinsey Digital / BCG Platinion: Oil & Gas Upstream Technology

Solved 1.2k times
McKinsey Digital / BCG Platinion: Oil & Gas Upstream Technology [PLEASE NOTE: This is a technically difficult case and should only be completed by those coming in as a Technology specialist, i.e. recruiting for McKinsey Digital, BCG Platinion, etc.] Our client is a multinational oil and gas company. While they are vertically integrated and have upstream, midstream, and downstream divisions, they have recently been experiencing competitivity issues in the upstream gas division, which brings in $1B in profits annually. Our client’s upstream division has offices in Australia and Indonesia. Their work is highly dependent on their IT systems, as they have to constantly monitor wells and pipes (pressure, hydrocarbon count, fluid makeup, etc.) The upstream division has two large legacy IT systems that are primarily used for downstream operations but have been modified for upstream purposes. These systems are managed by a central team in the US which is responsible for all IT issues across the business. They triage issues/enhancements and then manage development teams in India and Finland who complete the work.
4.5 5 31
| Rating: (4.5 / 5.0)

[PLEASE NOTE: This is a technically difficult case and should only be completed by those coming in as a Technology specialist, i.e. recruiting for McKinsey Digital, BCG Platinion, etc.] Our client is a multinational oil and gas company. While they are vertically integrated and have upstream, midstr ... Open whole case

Hot Wheels

Solved 1.0k times
Hot Wheels Problem definition: Our client is Korean Car Parts (KCP), a multi-national original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of car parts based in Korea. They've recently seen a decline in profits and have brought us in to understand how to address this falling profitability.
4.5 5 39
| Rating: (4.5 / 5.0)

Problem definition: Our client is Korean Car Parts (KCP), a multi-national original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of car parts based in Korea. They've recently seen a decline in profits and have brought us in to understand how to address this falling profitability. Open whole case