Hi,

It's a great question but unfortunately the answer is “it depends” (just as how consultants love to say). 

I'll add on 4 points:

1. It doesn't hurt to clarify with the interview what you are expected to ‘framework’ for especially if the prompt is vague - “e.g. are we expected to find out the root cause of the problem here?”
2. In some scenarios (e.g. revenue growth), you could clarify if the client is open to both inorganic and organic growth, that could clarify if you need to build up one branch or two branches
3. Value chain/Matrix will really depend on the context of the question - it is hard to generalize, but they both can work depending on the specific context
4. Lastly, think about what the case prompts says - there may be hints into what direction you need to start/prioritize, but you there are of course other ways of figuring out the priority of moving through the case (e.g. figuring out client wants/using benchmarks to determine opportunity size etc)

Some of the points above are still vague and not specific - because that is precisely the reality → consulting firms are looking for people who can think on the spot and think logically about a specific question/context, so it really all depends :)

(edited)

Hi there,

Q: Are there any critical clarifying questions I could have asked to help me identify a workable approach initially? 

Yes, definitely. The two types of approaches you referred to are related to two different situations.

In the one with the “root cause” you have a problem to fix. In the one you referred to with the "Ansoff Matrix”, you don’t have issues and just want to grow, thus need to identify the best option for it. 

You need to clarify with the interviewer what is the exact situation to properly structure an approach. Once that’s clear, you can follow the path related to that.

Best,

Francesco

Hi there,

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

• First of all, both of the approaches you've mentioned are viable, yet not for the same type of case study question. For instance, if revenues are declining, it would be meaningful to first understand where and why this is happening. On the other hand, if revenues are stable or slightly growing, but not enough, your approach for brainstorming growth initiatives is certainly a good one.
• Moreover, you're correct that the initial structure and critical clarifying questions play a crucial role in your approach. For instance, understanding the client's goals, business model, and market they are operating in, could significantly help to narrow down the range of potential initiatives.

If you would like a more detailed discussion on how to best structure any case study, please don't hesitate to contact me directly.

Best,

Hagen

(edited)

Hi there,

Careful!

It completely depends on the case.

Ansoff Matrix can work for some and not others. Root cause across value chain, less so (more of a profitability approach). Remember, listen to the prompt and break down the problem accordingly.

Case Leadership

If you have a MECE framework, that's exactly how you drive the case forward (use your structure to solve the problem). 

Take a look here to better understand how to do this: https://www.preplounge.com/en/articles/candidate-led-cases-what-to-expect-and-example-cases

While I do highly recommend you get coaching for this (your question is essentially asking "How do I solve a case well"), I can provide some initial guidance here.

Hypothesis-driven - We are no longer singular hypothesis-driven, stating this boldly at the beginning of the case. Rather, we are hypotheses-driven or objective-driven. This is very different.

Your entire framework is a set of hypotheses and views as to how to solve a problem.

You don't need to state it explicitly, but remember that 1) You need to always be thinking about one and 2) You need to be demonstrating your drive towards one.

Also, remember that a hypothesis isn't necessarily "I believe x is the cause". Be better hypothesis is "If we can see what's happening with A, and A is going up, and then we look into B and B is big, then x is likely the case".

A hypothesis is much more about what questions do I need to ask/answer and how, in order to see what's happening.

Another way of viewing it:

Your framework is your structure for approaching the problem. It consits of a few main areas you'd like to look at. Inherent in your framework is a view that "If I answer A, B, and C, then we have an answer"

So, for market entry:

1) If the market is big, and it's growing, then we still want to considering entering

2) If #1 = yes, then let's see if it's attractive...can we win there? Is our product good/better than our competition's? Etc. If yes, let's definitely consider entering.

3) If #1 and #2 = yes, then, when we do enter, are we sure we can win? I.e. do we have the right plans. Will implementation actually pan out? Do we have the expertise, capital, etc.? In other words, if #2 is the thearectical, #3 is the reality.

Then, your summary becomes "I believe we should enter the market, if we can prove it's a good market, the it's attractive to us specifically, and that we will win it".

^Now this is a hypothesis :)

Read these 4 Q&As for some great context + discussion:

https://www.preplounge.com/en/consulting-forum/interviewer-led-case-interview-hyposthesis-and-ideas-7390

https://www.preplounge.com/en/consulting-forum/forming-a-hypothesis-case-in-point-vs-victor-cheng-7311

https://www.preplounge.com/en/consulting-forum/what-about-victor-chengs-loms-and-case-interview-secrets-book-are-outdated-9846

https://www.preplounge.com/en/consulting-forum/at-what-point-in-the-case-does-the-interviewee-state-hypothesis-9356

Hope this helps! This is a tricky topic that's difficult to properly answer in writting...if you want a more thorough explanation, and training in the mindset shift required here, don't hesitate to reach out!

Hi there,

similar to what the other coaches mentioned, I'll say that the best path depends on how the case question is framed.

1. Company just wants to grow → clarify on the magnitude (verify objective), then start with ideation, prioritize, and (at times) size the ideas to close the gap to target step-by step
2. Company faces a revenue problem and wants to reaccelerate → isolate the problem (break down revenue and pinpoint where the issue is), then run root cause analysis first, and only then brainstorm to address the specific problem  

In essence, to decide what's the right path, you need to fully understand the problem statement - make sure to align upfront with the interviewer to avoid ambiguity on this.

If you'd like to learn more, feel free to reach out.

Hope this helps.

Regards, Andi