Final recommendation structure

Hi! I teach my mentees to slightly amend this in order to be more precise than the average candidate:

1. Precise answer to the question (it is NOT always a recommendation that was asked by the client!)

2. Precise Reason(s) for the answer

3. Further considerations/next steps (this typically involves e.g., prioritization of recommended measures (here is where risks come into play), or capabilities/doability assessment)

Hope this helps!

Cheers, Sidi

___________________

Dr. Sidi S. Koné

Former Senior Engagement Manager & Interviewer at McKinsey | Former Senior Consultant at BCG | Co-Founder of The MBB Offer Machine™

Hi there,

Q: Is it possible to blend 2&3 (i.e. mention one risk and its corresponding mitigation plan, and then go to the next risk & mitigation plan), or is it always clearer to separate 2 & 3 (i.e. mention all risk first, then address the mitigation plans)?

Personally, I find the presentation of all risks followed by their mitigations to be clearer. However, it is not necessarily wrong to list each risk and the specific mitigation right after each of them.

In terms of the structure to use, I would recommend the following:

a) Repeat the objective. This will ensure you are answering what is relevant to the case. If you don’t repeat the objective, you might answer the wrong question. As an example:

• “Our goal was to understand (i) why profits are declining and (ii) how we could increase profits by XYZ”

b) Provide an answer-first solution. You don’t have to present everything you found in the case, only the answer to the question you just repeated and its supporting factors. You should use points analyzed during the case to justify your recommendation:

• “After our initial analysis, we found out that profits are declining due to a decrease in revenues in division 1 and that, in order to increase profits, with the information we have so far it seems a good idea to enter Market A. This is based on the following reasons:
  • [SPECIFIC FINDINGS 1]
  • [SPECIFIC FINDINGS 2]
  • [SPECIFIC FINDINGS 3]”

c) Provide risks / next steps suggestions. You can always include risks and next steps in your conclusion. You can refer to the elements that you did not have time to cover present in your initial structure or to risks related to the analysis you have performed during the case:

• “As next steps, we would like also to consider the following…[RISKS/NEXT STEPS]”

Best,

Francesco

Hello,

I think it is helpful to have somewhat of a concrete structure for your recommendations. My only change to what you have would be as follows:

1. Recommendations
   1. Reason #1 for recommendation (drawing on information discussed in the case)
   2. Reason #2 for recommendation (drawing on information discussed in the case)
   3. Reason #3 for recommendation (drawing on information discussed in the case)

I personally think it’s cleaner to separate risks and next steps because that tends to make the answer more cleanly structured, however if you find in a specific case that it is more intuitive to blend them, that is fine. The most important thing is that your recommendation is clear, logical, structured, and answers the original prompt you were given.

Hi there,

the fact that there are varying opinions across experts on this hopefully shows you that there is ONE right cookie cutter way of doing the recommendation.

In my view, a smooth way is similar to what you and some coaches described

1. Recap the objective in 1 sentence - “Just to recap, objective was to …”
2. Give main conclusion: top-down, where you address the case question directly first, add 2-3 support points and then reinforce the recommendation.
3. Round out with key risks OR next steps - prefer to only have one to not overload the conclusion. Selection depends on nature of the case. If the recommendation can be considered (to an extent) controversial / debatable, stating key risks is more suitable, otherwise next steps are often a bit more natual.

As a general piece of advice, keep it concise. This part is a summary and not supposed to repeat all points you found out throughout the case.

Hope this helps.

Regards, Andi

Hi,

Some good answers already. I'll add some additional perspective based on the reality on the job. 

We often make a final recommendation at the end of a real project, distilling the insights of our findings and the implications for the client. Assuming you ‘cracked’ the case in the interview, the recommendation then becomes a ‘summary’ of the case.

But sometimes on the job, we also are asked to give a summary of our findings before the final output is done. In this case, we may not have enough yet to have make a full answer, and so in this case ‘next steps’ typically logically becomes what are the key analyses or work that still needs to be done to fully answer the question.

So the point is - a rigid structure may not always apply. The conclusion of the case is to give the client the findings, and share with him meaningful insights and implications, whether that are risks or next analytical steps, that really depends on the context of the problem.

Hi there,

Please remember that structure and fluidity/naturalness are not antithetical to each other.

Having structure and organization does not negate your ability to make it flow and sound natural.

You can merge risk and next step as long as you make it clear that you are doing so. I personally would still advise the 1, 2, 3

Hi there!

Actually, I'd suggest a different structure:

1. Restate the case mission - i.e., the core question you were meant to solve for the client
2. Provide a strong, direct recommendation
3. Provide 2-3 bullet points of supporting evidence / arguments for the recommendation
4. Cover the main 1-2 risks
5. Suggest next steps - either operational next steps of how to take the project forward or next steps in terms of the managing the core risks you highlighted

Aim for all of this to be under 2 minutes. 

That's it.

Best of luck!
Cristian

Hi there,

I would be happy to share my thoughts on your question:

• First of all, in most contexts, having a clear and rigid structure in the form of recommendation, risk, and next steps is beneficial because it provides a systematic and predictable way to present information, which facilitates better understanding and engagement from the interviewer. Especially in a high-pressure situation like an interview, this can be quite valuable.
• Moreover, please keep in mind that next steps are less about mitigation, but more about what would be the next steps of the analysis or sometimes implementation. As such, blending risks and next steps is not meaningful. However, grouping risks and their mitigation actions one after another might be.
• Lastly, I would advise you to always prioritize clarity and the needs of the interviewer. If you feel that integrating risks with their respective mitigation actions enhances clarity, then it's worth considering. But ensure that it doesn't lead to confusion or cause you to leave out essential details.

If you would like a more detailed discussion on how to best prepare for your upcoming interviews, please don't hesitate to contact me directly.

Best,

Hagen