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).
So, recently I realised that I like to always first write the key questions in my case structure and then divide the structure into the key buckets in order to first give a very high-level picture of what we are trying to achieve. I wanted to know your reactions to this kind of approach.
Eg: Let's say we have to see why a newly launched product has failed to deliver the expected sales and recommend what can be done about it. So, this is how I would go about the structure:
1. What are we selling? - Company - Product/ Price - Revenues- Distribution (related deep-dive questions)
2. How does it fit with the market? - Market attractiveness, Customers, Competition (related deep-dive questions while drawing a comparison)
>>> Deriving a conclusion on the basis of fit mis-match!
3. How can we improve sales? - Comparison of operational capabilities with that of competitors/ market/ customer expectations and solution building
4. Conclusion/ Recommendation
Any suggestions are more than welcome!
Thank you.
Hello all,
So, recently I realised that I like to always first write the key questions in my case structure and then divide the structure into the key buckets in order to first give a very high-level picture of what we are trying to achieve. I wanted to know your reactions to this kind of approach.
Eg: Let's say we have to see why a newly launched product has failed to deliver the expected sales and recommend what can be done about it. So, this is how I would go about the structure:
1. What are we selling? - Company - Product/ Price - Revenues- Distribution (related deep-dive questions)
2. How does it fit with the market? - Market attractiveness, Customers, Competition (related deep-dive questions while drawing a comparison)
>>> Deriving a conclusion on the basis of fit mis-match!
3. How can we improve sales? - Comparison of operational capabilities with that of competitors/ market/ customer expectations and solution building
I believe you have a problem in your thinking. It starts with understanding the purpose of a structure: structuring a case does NOT mean to tell the interviewer what you're going to look at! This is not a structure - it's just a bucket list... and a pretty random one most of the time!
Structuring a case means to explain to the interviewer the LOGIC according to which you will answer the question at hand. "Areas to look at" are just a byproduct of this logic.
So one of the worst things you can do is to start with defining qualitative "buckets" to look at (e.g., "I'm going to start with looking at the market, then I want to understand the customers etc."). This is nothing but unspecific and completely random, with no rigorous logic from which your areas are derived. It is, essentially, the opposite of how you should work as a strategy consultant. Defining buckets and then hoping to find something interesting in there is pure explorative working - another word for this is GUESSING.
One of the fundamental things that you need to learn in order to rigorously disaggregate the value drivers of a business and, hence, business-related questions, is how to set up rigorous driver trees. The driver tree allows you to identify the numerical drivers and sub-drivers of your focus metric (e.g., profits or sales). The qualitative elements (such as consumer demand, market structure, company operations, etc.) then have to be mapped to the sub-branches of the tree!
Hence, your analysis has two steps. Imagine you want to run a diagnostic on why profits have fallen. First you need to identify the numerical driver of the problem (e.g., customer base is shrinking). This gives you an understanding of the WHAT.The second step is the understanding of the WHY! To do this, you have to examine the qualitative elements that link to the "number of customers"-sub-branch in your driver tree (e.g., competitive situation, market entries, new substitutes, relative price point, customer preferences, product/service properties vs. competition, etc.)
You can think of these qualitative elements as the typical business situation framework elements (see V. Cheng et al.) - but here, they are not hanging in the air, but they are embedded in a rigorous thinking frame which emerges from the disaggregation of value drivers and linking it to qualitative reasons.
Cheers, Sidi
Hi,
I believe you have a problem in your thinking. It starts with understanding the purpose of a structure: structuring a case does NOT mean to tell the interviewer what you're going to look at! This is not a structure - it's just a bucket list... and a pretty random one most of the time!
Structuring a case means to explain to the interviewer the LOGIC according to which you will answer the question at hand. "Areas to look at" are just a byproduct of this logic.
So one of the worst things you can do is to start with defining qualitative "buckets" to look at (e.g., "I'm going to start with looking at the market, then I want to understand the customers etc."). This is nothing but unspecific and completely random, with no rigorous logic from which your areas are derived. It is, essentially, the opposite of how you should work as a strategy consultant. Defining buckets and then hoping to find something interesting in there is pure explorative working - another word for this is GUESSING.
One of the fundamental things that you need to learn in order to rigorously disaggregate the value drivers of a business and, hence, business-related questions, is how to set up rigorous driver trees. The driver tree allows you to identify the numerical drivers and sub-drivers of your focus metric (e.g., profits or sales). The qualitative elements (such as consumer demand, market structure, company operations, etc.) then have to be mapped to the sub-branches of the tree!
Hence, your analysis has two steps. Imagine you want to run a diagnostic on why profits have fallen. First you need to identify the numerical driver of the problem (e.g., customer base is shrinking). This gives you an understanding of the WHAT.The second step is the understanding of the WHY! To do this, you have to examine the qualitative elements that link to the "number of customers"-sub-branch in your driver tree (e.g., competitive situation, market entries, new substitutes, relative price point, customer preferences, product/service properties vs. competition, etc.)
You can think of these qualitative elements as the typical business situation framework elements (see V. Cheng et al.) - but here, they are not hanging in the air, but they are embedded in a rigorous thinking frame which emerges from the disaggregation of value drivers and linking it to qualitative reasons.
Cheers, Sidi
(edited)
That‘s awesome, personally I share absolutely the same opinion! How do several candidates get into MBB with such approaches though (like „first I‘m gonna look at a, then at b etc“)? (Personally I know a classmate who passed McK 1st round this way, and even got a few prep sessions from actual McK consultants...) Is the logic you explain indeed what all interviewers are looking for (and with other mindsets there is no chance to pass the interview)? —
Anonymous B on Aug 12, 2019(edited)
Mit tip: stop asking yourself what an interviewer might be looking for! What he/she IS definitely looking for is the rigor in your thinking. And this is demonstrated by setting up a clear criterion-based logic to answer the precise question at hand, and not by defining whatever buckets. People have been brainwashed into this thinking since the canonical casebooks packed with frameworks were published 10 or 15 years ago. But it's a very flawed (and very junior) way of thinking and places the candidate at an enormous risk, since you will always need luck to solve a case, let alone perform well during the process. —
Sidi on Aug 12, 2019(edited)
I would love to see the specific types of analysis in your structure, otherwise, the structure is too broad. E.g. instead of just looking at the competitors, I need to see it one level deeper and I would love to understand their size, growth rates, unit economics, key capabilities, etc
Best
Hi,
I would love to see the specific types of analysis in your structure, otherwise, the structure is too broad. E.g. instead of just looking at the competitors, I need to see it one level deeper and I would love to understand their size, growth rates, unit economics, key capabilities, etc
MBB Final Round Case - Smart EducationOur 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?
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
Hot WheelsProblem 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.
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
Chinese Chess - Airline Business During COVID-19Sky 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.
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[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.
[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
YodaPhoneOur client is Yoda's Phones, a national telecommunications company. They have embarked on a three-year, multi-million dollar digitization program. Unfortunately, two years into the program, they realize they are significantly behind schedule and over budget.
You have been brought in to right the ship and ensure the digitization program is delivered as planned.
Our client is Yoda's Phones, a national telecommunications company. They have embarked on a three-year, multi-million dollar digitization program. Unfortunately, two years into the program, they realize they are significantly behind schedule and over budget.
You have been brought in to right the sh ... Open whole case
Case in Point: The Perfect Preparation for the Case Interview in Consulting 
