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.
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.