I would like to hear your input/take on the following:
I personally find the hypothesis driven structure is a smoother, more intuititve way to structure the approach. When you have the hypothesis as your cornerstone, it transforms the buckets of analysis into sub answers to the entire case. Hence, it goes smoother and you crack it.
But I'm facing the following issue: I currently think of the buckets as "areas of investigation"; I investigate with no clear direction or specific metrics, but looking for indications and "AHA" moments. Partially because I want to avoid going too specific in my investigations, to leave area for different types of data the interviewer migth have.
Is this perception a right approach ? Should I leave it open upon discussion? (I would like to investigate revenues)? Or is it crucial for me to demonstrate that I'm tackling the right data points to drive the analysis ? ( I would like to investigate revenues; in specific I'll be looking at 1-Size, 2-shares, 3-segments, 4-growth of each segment)
Because I keep getting conflicting messages about it, and Ive been trying to shift to hypothesis driven, but I don't want to mess up my approaches at this stage.
Your input is highly appreciated.