expert
Expert with best answer

Sidi

99% Recommendation Rate

402 Meetings

3,293 Q&A Upvotes

USD 349 / Coaching

4

Making your framework relevant

Hi all,

I'm a rising junior preparing for fall recruitment. Regarding cases, I struggle with making frameworks relevant to the cases/ questions being asked. For example, if the case asks about launching a new product, I'd do the Customer, Competitor, Company framework- parts of Victor Cheng's business framework. But I'm afraid that by doing so I would sound too rigid (taking a framework straight out of the book)... so I don't know how to be more relevant. (This framework still helps me solve the case tho)

Hi all,

I'm a rising junior preparing for fall recruitment. Regarding cases, I struggle with making frameworks relevant to the cases/ questions being asked. For example, if the case asks about launching a new product, I'd do the Customer, Competitor, Company framework- parts of Victor Cheng's business framework. But I'm afraid that by doing so I would sound too rigid (taking a framework straight out of the book)... so I don't know how to be more relevant. (This framework still helps me solve the case tho)

4 answers

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

99% Recommendation Rate

402 Meetings

3,293 Q&A Upvotes

USD 349 / Coaching

Hi!

Let me be very blunt: with this kind of "bucket thinking", you will always struggle in cases, and you will always have to rely on luck.

In many ways, the way how V. Cheng presents his "business situation framework" is a prime example of how to NOT work as a strategy consultant! I believe it teaches a very junior and also fundamentally flawed way of how to think about business / strategy / organizational problems. It is a purely explorative approach: you define a couple of (more or less random) areas, and you hope to find something interesting in there which will lead you on the right track towards solving the issue. This is not a structure, but just a bucket list! This is not rigorous thinking! This is, essentially, guessing.

Rigorously thinking through business problems is fundamentally different. Each element that you want to scrutinize needs to clearly relate back to the question that you want to address! This principle should form the basis of any structure. And since you have to repeat this process for every question, it makes absolutely no sense to "learn" and memorize frameworks.

At the core, all strategic questions necessitate a more or less identical assessment:

Can the client create value or not?

Hence, juggling around with different frameworks, trying to map and match them to these questions is just demonstrating this fundamental non-understanding of the candidate. I will say it again and again: cases should be approached and solved from first principles!

  • One of these first principles is that you start EVERY case from the core question that you need to answer! This core question is the starting point of a rigorous logic tree, and each element that you want to analyze needs to clearly relate back to the core question! This principle forms the basis of any structure.
  • Another first principle is, e.g, to define the criterion or criteria that need to be met in order to anwer this core question in one way or another.

The big advantage is that this is making "frameworks" unneccessary for the structuring of cases! You need to learn and internalize the logic, then you have a bullet-proof toolbox under your belt, far more rigorous then a "framework-learning" approach.

Just one example below which I described in an earlier post. This is about capacity expansion and vertical integration. Please think it through - I hope you will realize that the same logic, centered around value creation, can be applied to a myriad of different situations that people often describe as "different case types" (new market, new product, m&a, etc.). It also works indepent of whether Profit is the primary objective or not. As long as the objective(s) is/are clear, the criterion to answer the core questions can be adapted accordingly. It can also easily applied to your outlined example!

EXAMPLE:

Question:

Our client is a large producer of PET. PET is a type of plastic that is used mainly for producing bottles, such as the ones you find in grocery stores. The main component of PET is PTA. Our client has a PET plant in the US and serves clients both in the US and Europe. They have made the decision to build a PET plant in Europe to be closer to the clients. They have asked you to evaluate whether they should also backward integrate and purchase a PTA plant and locate both plants next to each other.

Approach:

This is a strategic investment decision. A very clear approach would be:

1. Core Question: "Should the client invest into purchasing a PTA plant next to the new PET plant in Europe?"

2. Identify criterion to make this decision: The additional value we can create over the client's investment horizon has to be significantly higher than the investment cost. Moreover, the risks need to be manageable.

3. Compile base information: Purchasing Price of PTA plant / yearly operating cost of PTA plant if purchased / capacity of PTA plant vs. PTA need / investment horizon of client

4. Deep dive into the value bucket by means of a profitability tree: what are the levers of value here? Compare Scenario A (PTA plant in Europe) to Scenario B (no PTA plant in Europe). Probably the value lever lies on the cost side: how much savings potential due to decreased/eliminated transport costs? How much savings due to eliminated import tariffs? etc.

5. Calculate annual value (delta between Scenario A and B). If a PTA plant in Europe indeed increases annual profits by a certain amount, you then divide the purchasing price of the PTA plant by this additional yearly profit. This gives you the break even point (point in time after which the investment becomes profitable). If this point comes earlier than the investment horizon, then this is a beneficial investment and the client should proceed with the purchase (purely based on financials).

6. Don't forget to compile potential risks and mention them in your summary

Cheers, Sidi

Hi!

Let me be very blunt: with this kind of "bucket thinking", you will always struggle in cases, and you will always have to rely on luck.

In many ways, the way how V. Cheng presents his "business situation framework" is a prime example of how to NOT work as a strategy consultant! I believe it teaches a very junior and also fundamentally flawed way of how to think about business / strategy / organizational problems. It is a purely explorative approach: you define a couple of (more or less random) areas, and you hope to find something interesting in there which will lead you on the right track towards solving the issue. This is not a structure, but just a bucket list! This is not rigorous thinking! This is, essentially, guessing.

Rigorously thinking through business problems is fundamentally different. Each element that you want to scrutinize needs to clearly relate back to the question that you want to address! This principle should form the basis of any structure. And since you have to repeat this process for every question, it makes absolutely no sense to "learn" and memorize frameworks.

At the core, all strategic questions necessitate a more or less identical assessment:

Can the client create value or not?

Hence, juggling around with different frameworks, trying to map and match them to these questions is just demonstrating this fundamental non-understanding of the candidate. I will say it again and again: cases should be approached and solved from first principles!

  • One of these first principles is that you start EVERY case from the core question that you need to answer! This core question is the starting point of a rigorous logic tree, and each element that you want to analyze needs to clearly relate back to the core question! This principle forms the basis of any structure.
  • Another first principle is, e.g, to define the criterion or criteria that need to be met in order to anwer this core question in one way or another.

The big advantage is that this is making "frameworks" unneccessary for the structuring of cases! You need to learn and internalize the logic, then you have a bullet-proof toolbox under your belt, far more rigorous then a "framework-learning" approach.

Just one example below which I described in an earlier post. This is about capacity expansion and vertical integration. Please think it through - I hope you will realize that the same logic, centered around value creation, can be applied to a myriad of different situations that people often describe as "different case types" (new market, new product, m&a, etc.). It also works indepent of whether Profit is the primary objective or not. As long as the objective(s) is/are clear, the criterion to answer the core questions can be adapted accordingly. It can also easily applied to your outlined example!

EXAMPLE:

Question:

Our client is a large producer of PET. PET is a type of plastic that is used mainly for producing bottles, such as the ones you find in grocery stores. The main component of PET is PTA. Our client has a PET plant in the US and serves clients both in the US and Europe. They have made the decision to build a PET plant in Europe to be closer to the clients. They have asked you to evaluate whether they should also backward integrate and purchase a PTA plant and locate both plants next to each other.

Approach:

This is a strategic investment decision. A very clear approach would be:

1. Core Question: "Should the client invest into purchasing a PTA plant next to the new PET plant in Europe?"

2. Identify criterion to make this decision: The additional value we can create over the client's investment horizon has to be significantly higher than the investment cost. Moreover, the risks need to be manageable.

3. Compile base information: Purchasing Price of PTA plant / yearly operating cost of PTA plant if purchased / capacity of PTA plant vs. PTA need / investment horizon of client

4. Deep dive into the value bucket by means of a profitability tree: what are the levers of value here? Compare Scenario A (PTA plant in Europe) to Scenario B (no PTA plant in Europe). Probably the value lever lies on the cost side: how much savings potential due to decreased/eliminated transport costs? How much savings due to eliminated import tariffs? etc.

5. Calculate annual value (delta between Scenario A and B). If a PTA plant in Europe indeed increases annual profits by a certain amount, you then divide the purchasing price of the PTA plant by this additional yearly profit. This gives you the break even point (point in time after which the investment becomes profitable). If this point comes earlier than the investment horizon, then this is a beneficial investment and the client should proceed with the purchase (purely based on financials).

6. Don't forget to compile potential risks and mention them in your summary

Cheers, Sidi

(edited)

Book a coaching with Robert

96% Recommendation Rate

302 Meetings

1,779 Q&A Upvotes

USD 219 / Coaching

I mainly agree with Sidi's points about the structuring a case and that everything you cover needs to have a clear connection to driving value.

At the same time and based on my experience, frameworks are nevertheless also helpful for most candidates - and the framework is just a tool which is neither good nor bad, it's more the way on how you use this tool.

Having said that, I see 2 main areas for which case interview frameworks and concepts are relevant for case interviews:

  1. Sub-structuing specific branches of your general structure on how to approach the case. This will not only save you time if you can re-use/re-purpose some existing structure, but also help you to be more MECE under pressure. Just to be clear: I am not saying to use standard frameworks/concepts for building the main structuring of your case at all - it's about using them in layers below whereever they are appropriate and help you to be MECE.
  2. Structuring more specific questions/situations in later stages of the case. It's rather difficult for most candidates to come up with a structured answer/approach spontaneously - so also for structuing more detailed questions/situations it's oftenly useful to not start thinking from scratch, but to use something existing if it's appropriate and makes your answer better!

Hope that helps as a small addition!

Robert

I mainly agree with Sidi's points about the structuring a case and that everything you cover needs to have a clear connection to driving value.

At the same time and based on my experience, frameworks are nevertheless also helpful for most candidates - and the framework is just a tool which is neither good nor bad, it's more the way on how you use this tool.

Having said that, I see 2 main areas for which case interview frameworks and concepts are relevant for case interviews:

  1. Sub-structuing specific branches of your general structure on how to approach the case. This will not only save you time if you can re-use/re-purpose some existing structure, but also help you to be more MECE under pressure. Just to be clear: I am not saying to use standard frameworks/concepts for building the main structuring of your case at all - it's about using them in layers below whereever they are appropriate and help you to be MECE.
  2. Structuring more specific questions/situations in later stages of the case. It's rather difficult for most candidates to come up with a structured answer/approach spontaneously - so also for structuing more detailed questions/situations it's oftenly useful to not start thinking from scratch, but to use something existing if it's appropriate and makes your answer better!

Hope that helps as a small addition!

Robert

Try to start broadly (firm's revenues, situation, industry, competition) and narrow it down to the core queston (profitability case, market entry case, business case etc).

For example, new product case:

1) Firms' revenues, costs, trends

2) Industry

3) Product mix (some math required)

4) Recommendation

Try to start broadly (firm's revenues, situation, industry, competition) and narrow it down to the core queston (profitability case, market entry case, business case etc).

For example, new product case:

1) Firms' revenues, costs, trends

2) Industry

3) Product mix (some math required)

4) Recommendation

(edited)

Book a coaching with John

100% Recommendation Rate

77 Meetings

48 Q&A Upvotes

USD 259 / Coaching

Hi,

the three C's are very much a beginner's framework. I would rarely recommend to use it because it is to broad and requires you to asks dozens of questions to get to an anwer and you will likely run out of time. Don't forget real interviews are only ~30-35 minutes and not an hour like on preplounge.

There are some good resources out there that help you setting up structures, e.g. craftingcases.com - I also recommend as a good practice to take 50 cases (e.g. from MBA casesbooks) and only do the first 2 minutes ot the case of writing down a structure.

Hope this helps..

John

Hi,

the three C's are very much a beginner's framework. I would rarely recommend to use it because it is to broad and requires you to asks dozens of questions to get to an anwer and you will likely run out of time. Don't forget real interviews are only ~30-35 minutes and not an hour like on preplounge.

There are some good resources out there that help you setting up structures, e.g. craftingcases.com - I also recommend as a good practice to take 50 cases (e.g. from MBA casesbooks) and only do the first 2 minutes ot the case of writing down a structure.

Hope this helps..

John

Related BootCamp article(s)

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

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.

Related case(s)

MBB Final Round Case - Smart Education

Solved 3.5k 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 5 129
| 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

Chinese Chess - Airline Business During COVID-19

Solved 800+ times
Chinese Chess - Airline Business During COVID-19 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 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. 
4.4 5 22
| Rating: (4.4 / 5.0)

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

YodaPhone

Solved 600+ times
YodaPhone 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 ship and ensure the digitization program is delivered as planned.
4.5 5 36
| Rating: (4.5 / 5.0)

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

McKinsey Digital / BCG Platinion: Oil & Gas Upstream Technology

Solved 600+ 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 15
| 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

Hot Wheels

Solved 500+ 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.
4.4 5 16
| Rating: (4.4 / 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