Hello,

The question you are asking is something I've heard many times from candidates, i.e. “how many buckets is enough” or “is this framework an okay framework to use”.

Based on the way you phrased your question, I don't think you are approaching problem solving in the most optimal manner

Ideally, you'd want to be solving problems based on first principles and in a structured manner. What this means is 3 things:

1. It's less about memorizing a fixed framework to use for certain types of questions → and more about coming up with a tailored framework/approach for the specific question or case at hand
2. What you write down needs to be underpinned by sound logic → you need to be able to understand how each branch of your approach helps you to solve or answer the overall question/objective (and hence if its a good approach your approach is MECE)
3. Assuming your approach is MECE and has sound logic, then it is less about whether [x] number of branches is “okay”, but rather about being 80/20 and understanding which are the key ones to really prioritize and validate
   • This mimics the actual job - in consulting we never have enough resources or time to solve every possible question or to do every single analysis

Structuring and breaking down a problem (and then also following it through with robust analysis) is something that takes time to build up - and even on the job it takes people some time to learn this skill well. 

Plenty or resources out there that can help to sharpen your problem solving skills, and there are some previous Q&A posts that also cover similar topics.

All the best!

Hi there, 

To begin with, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the structure you're suggesting. 

I also understand that candidates would like to find the golden bullet that solves all problems. The structure that answers all questions. But this doesn't exist :( 

I know, it's rather sad. 

What interviewers expect from you is to think through the problem from the shoes of the business owner. They want to get a sense of your internal process because this gives them a glimpse into how you might behave when working with a client issue during an engagement. 

So then, your number one mission is not to see which framework is best for this or that market sizing exercise, but to fully connect with the question and the client context and try to create something based on first principles. It's not easy, I give you that, but if you learn that you'll not only pass the interviews, but also go on to be a great consultant. 

I detail out a technique for mixing bottom-up and top-down structuring in the following free guide on PrepLounge. I hope you'll find it useful.

• Mastering Brainstorming: A Consultant's Guide

Best,
Cristian

A lot of candidates try to have a pre-defined framework. But in strategy consulting it is not about using a pre-defined framework, but being able to create an approach that is customized to the problem at hand. So the idea behind this is fundamentally wrong.

Additionally, you are not answering any questions. You are just stating “areas of investigation”. With areas of investigation you won't know how to proceed to solve the case and will be boiling the ocean. You should be answering questions.

I don't understand 4. and 5. For example , in point 2. you define the distribution network. So what are you doing in point 4? Assessing if you have the capability to do that? Didnt you do that already in point 2? This really feels like one of those terrible “case in point” framework suggestions that put capability and risks everywhere. Same to 5. You already defined your market share in 2. You already defined your profitability (I guess) in 3. And only now you are going to define how to enter the market?!? 

You feel you have too much because you indeed have to much. Point 4 and 5 are non-sense and overlap with 2…

By the way, let me warn you again against “capabilities”. I see this coming up over and over again with candidates, and then they are rarely able to be specific about the capabilities they are considering. They will say: “do we have the money to invest”. Well, if you don't, you'll find it as long as the investment is a good idea. And I think we can safely assume that in 90% of the cases a client considering a market entry has the financial means to do it. Honestly, “how to finance something” is just a different problem than “should we do it”. Regarding capabilities, what are these? Logistics, distribution, brand, product development, etc. Well, don't assess “capabilities” in general, instead asses those specific capabilities I just mentioned (if they make sense for the specific problem).

But, going back to the beginning: first you have to have a specific problem to solve. One afterwards you can think about a specific solution.

Hello,

This sort of structure is fine to have in the back of your mind, but make sure you tailor it to the specific case you are working on. You should feel free to draw from any and all of these buckets, but I would not set up a textbook framework like this in a case. Situate it in context: which of the buckets are more/less applicable (e.g., maybe the question doesn't concern market entry, and you can get rid of bucket 5. maybe the case prompt indicates you should go down one way or another). So I would view this not as a finished framework, but as a list of potential buckets you could choose to apply in each case.

Another comment is that buckets #1 and #2 might not be very MECE, depending on how you present them (market share can depend on market size, for instance, and number of competitors could be indicative of size too). All the categories you wrote down within them could be useful in any given case, just be sure to develop a clear segmentation here.

Combine the first three buckets into one (Does this make financial sense?). Divide the fourth bucket into two (Do we have the required capabilities to enter this market, and can we manage the potential risks?). Remove the last bucket, and you are good to go