Cookie and Privacy Settings

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).

Manage settings individually I accept
expert
Expert with best answer

Francesco

100% Recommendation Rate

3,106 Meetings

8,374 Q&A Upvotes

USD 429 / Coaching

2

Is mind mapping for solving a case study ok?

Hello everyone,

After going through some case studies I have realised that the suggested strategy of structuring your thoughts by using an issue tree and/or a common framework first "limits/hinders" my ability to think broad and see the big picture. The fact that issue trees are meant to be MECE makes it sometimes difficult for me to include other important aspects which should be investigated but are either not captured explicitly by the issue tree/framework (e.g. customer segmentation in an otherwise profit-equation based problem) or are not MECE (e.g. analysing growth potential and competitiveness in a market entry case). Consequently, I found myself forgetting to analyse other important areas simply because the issue tree or framework was too specific to capture them.

What really helped me here was to do some mind mapping of all the relevant aspects/areas I wanted to investigate right after the case was presented to me. After that, I determined which of these areas was the most critical one in order to solve the case and focussed on this area during my analysis. Thus, the mind map only served as a "preliminary structure" which ensured that I saw the "big picture" while being able to determine the "direction" of my analysis. Then I would develop a MECE framework for the critical area and anaylse it. A mind map is not necessarily MECE and not as structured as an issue tree. However, it helps me a lot in not forgetting about other important areas to consider in addition to the "key area" which would not have been captured by applying a MECE framework right away.

My point here is, is it ok to use mind mapping first to get a preliminary overview of the situation, identify the focus of your analysis AND THEN continue with developing a MECE structure of critical area identified?

Sorry for this too long question but I just wanted to make sure that you get my point :)

Hello everyone,

After going through some case studies I have realised that the suggested strategy of structuring your thoughts by using an issue tree and/or a common framework first "limits/hinders" my ability to think broad and see the big picture. The fact that issue trees are meant to be MECE makes it sometimes difficult for me to include other important aspects which should be investigated but are either not captured explicitly by the issue tree/framework (e.g. customer segmentation in an otherwise profit-equation based problem) or are not MECE (e.g. analysing growth potential and competitiveness in a market entry case). Consequently, I found myself forgetting to analyse other important areas simply because the issue tree or framework was too specific to capture them.

What really helped me here was to do some mind mapping of all the relevant aspects/areas I wanted to investigate right after the case was presented to me. After that, I determined which of these areas was the most critical one in order to solve the case and focussed on this area during my analysis. Thus, the mind map only served as a "preliminary structure" which ensured that I saw the "big picture" while being able to determine the "direction" of my analysis. Then I would develop a MECE framework for the critical area and anaylse it. A mind map is not necessarily MECE and not as structured as an issue tree. However, it helps me a lot in not forgetting about other important areas to consider in addition to the "key area" which would not have been captured by applying a MECE framework right away.

My point here is, is it ok to use mind mapping first to get a preliminary overview of the situation, identify the focus of your analysis AND THEN continue with developing a MECE structure of critical area identified?

Sorry for this too long question but I just wanted to make sure that you get my point :)

(edited)

2 answers

  • Upvotes
  • Date ascending
  • Date descending
Best Answer
Book a coaching with Francesco

100% Recommendation Rate

3,106 Meetings

8,374 Q&A Upvotes

USD 429 / Coaching

Hi Laura,

Based on my experience, you should be able to make each issue tree/framework inclusive of all the important areas of the case. If you find that this is not happening and you are forgetting areas, it probably means your issue tree/ framework is not complete, and you should integrate it with additional elements, rather than adding mind mapping.

Let's take the examples that you mentioned:

Customer segmentation in an otherwise profit-equation based problem

Before moving to the profitability equation, you can ask for customer segmentation and then apply the profitability equation to that specific client. To be more clear, something like this:

http://bit.ly/2kEHQqr

Analysing growth potential and competitiveness in a market entry case

Given a certain amount of competitiveness (usually found in a qualitative way) you can estimate the growth potential for a company (usually in quantitative way). The same thing holds for the growth potential for a market (which is even less influenced by competitiveness). Therefore, with the appropriate priority in the analysis of the elements, you could make MECE your approach in the analysis.

As a consequence, rather than dividing the process in two steps, you may merge your mind mapping with a "common framework", to create your personalized framework. This will make your initial structure longer, compared to a "common framework", but also more effective than dividing the process in two steps.

It is also important to remember that sometimes your first level of the structure would have to be sequential to be MECE, as we saw in the previous example.

Let’s see a concrete example for an entry in a new market case to be developed in two levels:

Level 1 of the structure (current mind mapping)

Let’s say you have structured as follows:

  1. Industry analysis
  2. Company analysis: are we going to reach our goal in this industry (profitability, revenues, keeping a competitor out…)?
  3. Best way to enter
  4. Risks

(This is indeed an example of a sequential structure, as, for example, you may want to explore the best way to enter the market only if you can find you would meet your goal in that market).

Once presented, potentially going deeper in each of the points, you could then start analysing in details the first point. Here usually the interviewer will conduct to a specific area of the case, in particular in a McKinsey-style interview. In both cases you would then move to

Level 2 of the structure (current “common framework”)

Say the interviewer will ask you to calculate if you would reach your target profitability goal in this market. At this point, you may apply a profitability framework, with the traditional issue tree.

Overall, you could make both the levels as part of your customized framework from the beginning, without the need of considering the first as mental map and the second as “common framework”.

Hope this helps,

Francesco

Hi Laura,

Based on my experience, you should be able to make each issue tree/framework inclusive of all the important areas of the case. If you find that this is not happening and you are forgetting areas, it probably means your issue tree/ framework is not complete, and you should integrate it with additional elements, rather than adding mind mapping.

Let's take the examples that you mentioned:

Customer segmentation in an otherwise profit-equation based problem

Before moving to the profitability equation, you can ask for customer segmentation and then apply the profitability equation to that specific client. To be more clear, something like this:

http://bit.ly/2kEHQqr

Analysing growth potential and competitiveness in a market entry case

Given a certain amount of competitiveness (usually found in a qualitative way) you can estimate the growth potential for a company (usually in quantitative way). The same thing holds for the growth potential for a market (which is even less influenced by competitiveness). Therefore, with the appropriate priority in the analysis of the elements, you could make MECE your approach in the analysis.

As a consequence, rather than dividing the process in two steps, you may merge your mind mapping with a "common framework", to create your personalized framework. This will make your initial structure longer, compared to a "common framework", but also more effective than dividing the process in two steps.

It is also important to remember that sometimes your first level of the structure would have to be sequential to be MECE, as we saw in the previous example.

Let’s see a concrete example for an entry in a new market case to be developed in two levels:

Level 1 of the structure (current mind mapping)

Let’s say you have structured as follows:

  1. Industry analysis
  2. Company analysis: are we going to reach our goal in this industry (profitability, revenues, keeping a competitor out…)?
  3. Best way to enter
  4. Risks

(This is indeed an example of a sequential structure, as, for example, you may want to explore the best way to enter the market only if you can find you would meet your goal in that market).

Once presented, potentially going deeper in each of the points, you could then start analysing in details the first point. Here usually the interviewer will conduct to a specific area of the case, in particular in a McKinsey-style interview. In both cases you would then move to

Level 2 of the structure (current “common framework”)

Say the interviewer will ask you to calculate if you would reach your target profitability goal in this market. At this point, you may apply a profitability framework, with the traditional issue tree.

Overall, you could make both the levels as part of your customized framework from the beginning, without the need of considering the first as mental map and the second as “common framework”.

Hope this helps,

Francesco

(edited)

Thank you for your very informative answer, Francesco!

Thank you for your very informative answer, Francesco!

Related BootCamp article(s)

MECE Principle

The MECE method is a way of segmenting data into sub-elements that are mutually exclusive & collectively exhaustive. Learn more now!

Quiz

Case Studies

The case study is the most important element of the case interview, which you'll have to nail in order to get into strategic consulting. Here you can learn the specific skills and concepts necessary to solve them.

1 Q&A

Focusing on The Core: Mock Interviews

It is to practice as many cases as possible - both as interviewee and as interviewee. Here are a couple of guidelines to help you get started

Approaching a Case

In order to get into consulting, the case study is the most important element of the interview. Here, you can learn the specific skills and concepts to solve them.

1 Q&A

Getting Up to Speed

In order to repeatedly demonstrate prerequisite skills under the pressure of a real case interview, you need to learn the basics and practice cases.

1 Q&A

Related case(s)

MBB Final Round Case - Smart Education

Solved 11.0k times
MBB Final Round Case - Smart Education 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 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?
4.6 5 427
| Rating: (4.6 / 5.0)

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

Espresso, Whatelse?

Solved 7.4k times
Espresso, Whatelse? Espresso Whatelse is an Italian company that produces coffee and espresso machines since 1908. It is the Italian market leader and has a strong presence overall in Europe. In 2019, Espresso Whatelse has increased its revenues but it has seen declining profit margin. Your client wants to understand the root causes of this 2019 trend and how to increase its profit margin again.  
4.6 5 378
| Rating: (4.6 / 5.0)

Espresso Whatelse is an Italian company that produces coffee and espresso machines since 1908. It is the Italian market leader and has a strong presence overall in Europe. In 2019, Espresso Whatelse has increased its revenues but it has seen declining profit margin. Your client wants to understand ... Open whole case

Hot Wheels

Solved 2.9k times
Hot Wheels 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.
4.6 5 199
| Rating: (4.6 / 5.0)

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

McKinsey Digital / BCG Platinion: Oil & Gas Upstream Technology

Solved 1.8k times
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.
4.5 5 42
| Rating: (4.5 / 5.0)

[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