Miner's case structure

Hi there,

I happen to work in mining, leading financial decision evaluation for project work of this nature.

You will have to work backwards here from the objective, which is focused on profitability. I would argue that there's probably also an element of capital at play, which is missing in the prompt.

Focusing on profit only, any of your drivers should sort themselves into categories of revenue vs. cost (+ capital) for each scenario that you can identify. If you can't, they're irrelevant to the question. 

For any relevant driver, make sure you explain why and how exactly they drive value with regards to revenue and cost.

Let's take quality for example:

• Revenue: Quality of the drill is likely related to mineral recovery. If there's any inconsistencies or concerns about quality, this will hurt recovery relative to some baseline and therefore your topline. Conversely, and improved quality over time through continuous development may improve recovery over time relative to some baseline.
• Cost: Lower quality might lead to bit failure, which means you have to replace the part more often than you might want. Higher quality might lead to less replacement cost. However, you may also have to pay a higher cost for higher quality. So where's the sweet spot with regards to cost (for drill bit of a certain quality) and benefit (sufficiently low breakage) to have an overall lowest cost base.

You should take this approach with any driver you can identify. Otherwise, you will talk about drivers that might be relevant, but you're not actually showing how they're relevant to the question at hand.

Hope this helps!

Moritz

Your approach is on the right track, but let's refine the framework for this case, where you need to choose between two options:

1) Understanding the Client's Situation:
  - Assess the client's past experience in manufacturing or outsourcing.
  - Evaluate the existing infrastructure, technology, and labor capabilities.
  - Consider the client's ability to ensure quality and timely delivery of the drill bit.
  - Determine the maximum quantity the client can produce in-house.

2) Outsourcing the Drill Bit:
  - Evaluate the supplier's ability to deliver the drill bit on time.
  - Assess the quality standards of the supplier's drill bit.
  - Determine the quantity the supplier can reliably manufacture.

3) Financial Analysis of Options:
  - Calculate the potential revenue for each scenario (manufacturing in-house vs. outsourcing).
  - Analyze the costs associated with each option, including manufacturing costs, outsourcing costs, and any associated risks.
  - Consider the profitability, return on investment, and payback period for both scenarios.

4) Risk Assessment:
  - Identify potential risks and uncertainties associated with each option.
  - Evaluate the client's risk tolerance and ability to mitigate or manage these risks.

5) Recommendation:
  - Based on the financial analysis and risk assessment, recommend the option that aligns best with the client's objectives, whether it's manufacturing in-house or outsourcing.

Remember to consider not only the immediate financial implications but also the long-term strategic impact of the chosen option. Additionally, communicate your recommendation clearly and provide a rationale based on the analysis.

Warm regards,
Frederic

Hey!

Regarding the Clarifying questions:

Don't forget to clarify our temporary and financial goals (specifically, which financial indicator is used as a KPI) and our constraints in terms of investments and the implementation lead time. Also, find out more about the client's business and operation models, these can be useful when making the final decision (when analysing synergies, for example).

How to build a framework if two options are given and you need to select one of them?

It's a basic investment case with two options. You don't need to structure for each option, but rather use a matrix framework: you lines are the two available options (in-house vs outsource) and the columns are the criteria you use to evaluate both of them such as Financials, Client capabilities, etc.

Could you please help to modify this framework?

I've outlined the general approach with the matrix structure above. I would certainly add such factors as Synergies and Risks to your analysis. Also, your Financial block lacks the Investment part. 

If you want to discuss the structure of a similar investment case in greater detail, feel free to reach out for a coaching session.

Kind regards,
Nick

 

First, remember that casing isn't just about memorizing every step, industry, case type, etc. It's about learning how to be adaptable and nimble. So, always be prepared for the unexpected.

1. All cases are structured, wheather you realise the structure or not. It's your job to keep it organised and keep it to a good flow/framework!

2. Figure out what data/information you need and ask for it: The interviewer won't just give it to you (just like your client won't know what you need from them). Use your framework to dive into areas! If your interviewer insists they don't have data in that area (after you've gone specific), then go into another area of your framework (or expand out).

3.In this case try and keep a mini framework in your head. You can write as you talk as well.

When you say "not those kinds of questions an interview-led style would ask" this shows me that you're limited in your preparation....don't come in expecting a certain format/style! Be ready to drive your own case if needed. Think if you were on a real life project and asked to lead it...this is what they need you to demonstrate!

Frameworks

If there's anything to remember in this process, is that cases don't exist just because. They have come about because of a real need to simulate the world you will be in when you are hopefully hired. As such, remember that they are a simplified version of what we do, and they test you in those areas.

As such, remember that a framework is a guide, not a mandate. In the real-world, we do not go into a client and say "right, we have a framework that says we need to look at x, y, and z and that's exactly what we're going to do". Rather, we come in with a view, a hypothesis, a plan of attack. The moment this view is created, it's wrong! Same with your framework. The point is that it gives us and you a starting point. We can say "right, part 1 of framework is around this. Let's dig around and see if it helps us get to the answer". If it does, great, we go further (but specific elements of it will certainly be wrong). If it doesn't, we move on.

So, in summary, learn your frameworks, use the ones you like, add/remove to them if the specific case calls for it, and always be prepared to be wrong. Focus rather on having a view, refering back to the initial view to see what is still there and where you need to dive into next to solve the problem.

HOW to learn/think in the right way.

1. Frame based on the objective: Identify exactly what the objective is, then think about the areas you would look at to solve the problem.
2. Think of buckets as "building blocks" - understand the 10-odd buckets that exist out them (Market, Product, Company, How to Enter, etc.). Learn these, and what their used for, then think of them as ingredients that you then pluck out and tailor to your framework.
3. Practice with Introduction, then End, then framework:
   1. ​ Practice a number of cases where you hear just the introduction, then build a framework.
   2. THEN, look at the end of the case and what conclusion was made, and re-do your framework.
   3. THEN, look at what framework(s) was/were proposed as the answer.
4. Read the Economist religiously: The Economist is an excellent, longer-term base knowledge/thinking resource for you. I've found that reading the Economist over the years has been instrumental in helping to shape my thinking and holistically understand problems, whether political, economic, social, or anything in between. Feel free to throw in the Financial Times or BCG Insights into the mix!

Hi there!

I see you received lots of great answer below. 

One addition - when structuring, it also helps to think of meta-structures, which are basically ways of structuring your answer to the problem, rather than structuring the problem itself. 

Basically, in this case, you could think of a project plan in consulting. You'd first want to do a dignostic (similar to your ‘understanding’ area), then you'd want to do the design (where you'd actually generate the vision and what it takes to make it happen), then lastly implementation (which is about actually making it happen in the real world). 

Sharing with you also an additional guide on structuring techniques that you might find helpful:

• Expert Guide: Mastering Structuring & Brainstorming
   

Best,
Cristian

———————————————

Practicing for interviews? Check out my latest case based on a first-round MBB interview >>> SoyTechnologies